The CBC reports that PQ culture critic Pierre Curzi is calling on the Quebec government to invoke the notwithstanding clause. The Parti Québécois is urging the Quebec government to use the ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit access to private English schools after the Supreme Court quashed Bill 104, part of the province’s language legislation.

Bill 104 had closed a loophole allowing children not eligible for the English-language public school system to gain access by first spending time in a private English school. Rights in the constitution guarantee the right of tuition free attendance at English publicly financed schools if children’s parents have received most of their education in Canadian English schools or the children have had an English language education.

But the Supreme Court struck down Bill 104 in a ruling recently. It said in its decision that Bill 104’s purposes were acceptable in that the parents involved were exploiting an administrative loophole, However it said that the approach to closing the loophole should have been different. Rather than setting a general rule blocking the right of continuing attendance at English publicly financed schools if a student attend a private English school solely to gain admittance to the English public system, the Court said the government should rule on a case by case basis for each school and each student based on their motives for operating or attending the school.

I wrote a few days ago that the Supreme Court was in error in its ruling. (see http://www.policycentre.ca/2009/10/27/934/). The Court should not tell provinces how to administer education policy that is justified. This is meddling in administrative policy which is well beyond the competence of the Court. The solution that the Court suggests is an administrative nightmare and frankly stupid. Bill 104 is a much better approach and should have been left alone.

It is hard not to be sympathetic to the PQ case. If the Court insists on this kind of activist stance, resulting in silly interventions in policy, it may be time for governments to use the clause, as much as it is disliked. This might have a sobering affect on the Supreme Court when it is tempted to step into policy matters beyond its competence.

We are being told by government and Vancouver city officials that while the Olympics is a feel good event, Vancouver residents and visitors can’t go so far as to express themselves in ways that might embarrass the city. Three recent changes in laws and policies that add significantly to the powers of the provincial and city governments and their police forces wil help ensure that this won’t happen. All three bring back a few too many reminders of the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, when the government ripped down signs and took gypsy’s camping on streets and in parks off to shelters and jails as part of a campaign to make Berlin look better. All three need a much harder look.

The first is the well-publicized set of by-laws approved by the cities of Richmond, Whistler and Vancouver under a new provincial law that permits the cities to enter residences and other private property with only 24 hours notice to remove or cover up signs during the Olympic period. No distinction is made on the basis of the content of such signs, so it is not just to stop people from using the Olympic logo and symbols to advertise their products.

Next we have a new provincial law that will let police remove people who are ‘sleeping’ on streets and force them to move to shelters or jail. Documents quoted by the Vancouver Sun state “The officer takes a person to a shelter. If the person is not accommodated at the shelter, alternative accommodation may be found. As a last resort, and in order for the police to discharge their legal responsibility, the individual maybe taken to police cells… “.

Now we have the news that the Vancouver police are acquiring a high tech sonic device that can be used to cause grievous pain from a distance, making it very effective as a crowd control weapon. While the police insist that it is to be used only to improve communications, they and other experts confirm that it is also used by forces elsewhere for crowd control.

Of course the politicians insist that these measures will all be used benignly. They are not intended to be used to intimidate or interfere with the rights of people to speak freely either through speech or signs, or with their right to participate in organized protest. And we are assured, they are not intended to stop people from doing things simply because their behavior embarrasses visiting athletes, officials, and political leaders or tarnishes Vancouver’s image. After all governments are not permitted to do such things under the Constitution, and to do so would offend all of our basic values.

But we can we rely on the intentions of the police and security forces. Not likely. Remember the APEC meetings? I was a senior government official at that time, and thought I had seen it all, but I was shocked at the determination of the police and security officials to suppress behavior they didn’t like. The police and other authorities can be counted upon to make full use the powers they obtain, regardless of the intentions of the politicians who pass them. We can be sure that the police will push the envelope when faced with pressure to crack down on folks who make BC and Vancouver’ look bad’. That is the insidious thing about these kinds of laws –they are justified with good intentions but then applied on the basis of what they say. I have little doubt that protest signs will be ripped down, organized demonstrations will be broken up, and people will be lifted off the streets whenever the police, Olympic officials or government leaders dislike what they see or hear, whether or not there is a real security threat. And the Constitution can only prevent the use of these laws retroactively – that is after someone has mounted a successful court challenge. By that time it will likely be too late. And the police know that. So too do the lawmakers.

These laws mean only one thing – that the feel good message of the Olympics will be protected from any awkward protests or behaviors, regardless of our rights and values. That will be one of the legacies of the Olympics. It is not the one that most people hoped for. And it need not have been. The police have all the powers they need under existing laws. Our local and provincial leaders should know better. But of course they know that what they are really doing is giving the police and security forces the permission they want to use the heavy had when things don’t go as they want. For some reason politicians aren’t capable of resisting the demands for more police powers, so long as they have a cover for granting them. In this case it is the Olympics. I supported the Olympics but not to see them used to justify this kind of thing.

And kudos to the two city councilors from COPE (a civic political party) who voted against the Vancouver by-laws on signs.

The ink is hardly dry on Stephen Harper’s press release setting up the Salmon Inquiry. Now we have the news that the BC Government (you know, the one that keeps telling us how green it is) will be removing gravel from the lower Fraser River this winter, even though all the experts know this will kill salmon. The Federal Government will go along. Not very long ago, the federal government prosecuted people for doing this unless it was done on the basis of no net loss to fish stocks. Not very long ago BC had a Fish Protection Act that prohibited such a thing.

Not any more. But what really hurts is the audacity of this so soon after setting up the Salmon Inquiry. The damage done by gravel removal is well known. Just a few months ago, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development and the federal Auditor General found that a 2006 removal killed over 2.5 million salmon in the Fraser River. Their report also found that there has been inadequate information to approve the removals that have been done by the BC Government over the last five years and that the removals have been excessive and have been destroying salmon habitat Yesterday the highly respected Chair of the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee asked that no gravel removals proceed until the Salmon Inquiry report is received. An expert, he knows very well the damage done to salmon by most of the removals.

None of this matters to the Government of BC. It is going ahead with its plans for gravel removals this winter. It says it is doing so to control flooding. Which would be fine if it were true. But once again we have one of those clever lies that this government has become so adept at producing. Some removals are needed to protect against dangers of flooding and with proper procedures can proceed with minimal damage. But in fact most of the removals are to supply gravel for the massive construction needs of contractors in the lower mainland and the Fraser River Valley. And most directly or indirectly kill large amounts of salmon.

It is sad that the Government of BC is doing this while at the same time claiming it wants to save salmon from destruction. It is also sad the the Government of Canada is letting it happen. It is hard not to be angry about the duplicity of both. B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner said he’s grateful for the inquiry, claiming the loss of salmon stock is a mystery because the ocean is so big. There is not nearly as much mystery about what is destroying the salmon as he and others claim. In many ways their demise is a death by a thousand cuts. Many many things done or approved by governments, when added together, make it impossible for salmon to survive. Governments must stop siding with development every time a problem arises. They have a choice. They can start siding with the salmon, or let them be destroyed. If they are going to chose the latter, they should stop the charade. Forget the Salmon Inquiry if this is the choice they make within days of setting it up.

There is one option. The Salmon Inquiry Commissioner, Mr. Justice Cohen, could as his very first act, order the two governments to stop gravel removals until his report is completed. That would establish his Inquiry as a serious undertaking right from the start. And come to think of it why don’t all concerned BC residents blanket his inevitable Facebook page with this demand. Let’s find out how serious this Commission is.