"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France

Canada's vagrancy law was repealed in 1972, but as noted by Todd Gordon in his paper titled "The New Vagrancy Laws and the Politics of Poverty in Canada" (delivered at the 2004 Canadian Political Science Association Conference), "we are witnessing the de facto renewed criminalization of vagrancy via municipal by-laws, zero tolerance policing and laws like Ontario's Safe Streets Act."

Ontario's Safe Streets Act came into force on January 1, 2000 making it an offense to "solicit in an aggressive manner". The Canadian Civil Liberties Association challenged the constitutionality of the Ontario law, but lost at the Ontario Court of Justice; they said they would appeal. It is likely that the Ontario law will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Government backbencher, Lorne Mayencourt introduced a private members' bill modeled on the Ontario statute. With the support of the Union of BC Municipalities, Premier Campbell pledged to re-introduce a similar government Bill in the next few days.

Few believe that a Safe Streets Act is necessary in order to deal with the three categories of offenses enumerated in the law: aggressive panhandling, solicitation of a captive audience, and unsafe disposal of used condoms and needles. The real purpose of the law is to give police a tool for harassing vagrants and getting them out of sight. The Criminal Code has adequate provisions for dealing with assault, but a provincial statute offers the possibility of simply issuing a ticket. What's the likelihood that a squeegee kid is going to pay a $500 ticket? The Campbell government has cut legal aid, closed court houses, closed prisons and changed court rules so as to cut costs. Is it now prepared to backup the courts and jails by prosecuting unpaid fines? Of course not. The law provides a tool for harassment, not a tool for enforcement. According to the University of Toronto's student newspaper, Varsity News, the Crown "… announced the withdrawal of 67 of the 80 charges faced by people ticketed for squeegeeing and aggressive panhandling, due to lack of evidence in the form of disclosure documentation from police, which would have specified the circumstances around each charge." The police don't want to spend the time necessary to get a conviction on each ticket issued, and the government doesn't want to tie up the courts and the penal system with enforcement. All that is sought is a mean broom to sweep the street; out of sight, out of mind.

The government could harass street people without an unnecessary provincial law, but the law and the process of building a constituency that supports the law, gives the government political protection in its mean spirited, and likely unconstitutional, re-introduction of vagrancy provisions. The government is counting on the police taking political direction. In Vancouver, unless he was misquoted, it looks like the Chief of Police is far too willing to get on board.

In the short term, a politically driven "Safe Streets" law is cheaper than the provision of adequate addiction services, mental health workers and social housing. A couple of elections could come and go before many understand the consequences of making the streets even meaner.