Pubdate: Sat, 14 Jun 2008
Source: Nouvelles Parc-Extension News (CN QU)
Copyright: 2008 Nouvelles Parc-Extension News
Contact:  http://www.px-news.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4498
Author: Prof. Andrew Sancton, Department of Political Science 
University of Western Ontario

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDRESSING URBAN SOCIAL ISSUES?

Which level of government is responsible for homeless, drug-addicted 
prostitutes? This sounds like the opening for a sick version of one 
of those lame jokes about the Canadian obsession for 
intergovernmental correctness.

But, in fact, it is a very real conundrum, especially for 
policy-makers concerned with the vitality of our inner-city 
neighbourhoods.  The debate about Vancouver's safe injection site is 
a case in point.  Just why is it that its future is to be determined 
solely by the federal government in Ottawa?

The answer, of course, is that the federal government has 
jurisdiction over criminal law and harmful drugs.  Such laws probably 
are more relevant to what happens on the streets of many of our 
inner-city neighbourhoods than many municipal by-laws that are 
explicitly concerned with streets.  In short, it is the federal 
government that seems to hold much of the jurisdictional authority 
for what is sometimes called "urban disorder."

Canadians justifiably pride ourselves in being less concerned with 
disorder and more concerned with attacking the so-called "root 
causes" of social problems.  Some advocate a larger role for the 
federal government in attacking root causes, especially in social 
housing. But the reality is that our provinces are the levels of 
government best equipped for social policy.  Some already have 
sophisticated programs in place.

Of course, these programs need more resources and they need to be 
better coordinated with each other.  But the solution here is not to 
bring in the federal government.  It is to insist that the federal 
government provide more tax room for provinces to cope with the 
enormity of the problems for which they are responsible.

Is there a role for municipalities in attacking the root causes of 
social problems? Not really.  If we want municipalities to be 
responsible for social programs we shall have to make them bigger 
than they are already are and give them a range of taxing authority 
that even most mayors are not asking for.  Otherwise, there will be 
"a race to the bottom," with all but the richest municipalities 
trying to export their social problems to their neighbours.

What municipalities are good at ( or should be good at ) is 
regulating the use of public spaces ( within the context of the 
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) and providing an 
appropriate array of collective services to support a high quality of 
urban life.

Streets that are populated by drug-addicted, homeless prostitutes are 
evidence that the quality of urban life in that area is pretty low? 
What is to be done and which level of government is to do it?

Let's acknowledge that our provincial governments need to go after 
the root causes of the problem.  They need to provide integrated 
services that probably start with drug rehabilitation programs, 
subsidized housing, and community-based services that are closely 
connected with the housing.  Given other demands on provincial 
resources, this is asking a lot, but these are the tough decisions 
that provincial governments have to make.

But what about the selling of sexual services by someone who is not 
mentally-disturbed, homeless, or drug-addicted? Right now the 
Criminal Code makes it illegal to engage in public solicitation for 
such services and to operate a brothel.  Meanwhile, municipal 
governments are licensing massage parlours and escort services, whose 
advertisements are quite legal.

Why shouldn't municipalities be making the rules about what happens 
on their streets and why shouldn't they be able to regulate and 
license brothels and safe injection sites so that they can act to try 
to prevent the obvious deterioration of some of their most sensitive 
neighbourhoods?

American responses to problems of urban disorder have often involved 
harsh police crackdowns with few, if any, attempts to attack root 
causes.  We need provincial action on root causes, not more debates 
about who is responsible.

But Canadians are also justified in expecting that, when programs in 
place to provide housing and community support for people who are 
indigent, mentally ill, or drug addicted, then municipal government 
should be able to enforce by-laws preventing people from sleeping in 
streets or accosting passers-by for money.

Better root cause social policies will mean that we will have far 
fewer drug-addicted homeless prostitutes than we have now.  But 
municipalities are likely to still need more authority to control 
what happens on public streets and sidewalks, places that are so 
important for the quality of urban life for everybody.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom