Tuesday 30 November 1999

Safe Streets Act, 1999, Bill 8, Mr Flaherty / Loi de 1999 sur la sécurité dans les rues, projet de loi 8, M. Flaherty


Chair / Président
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Susan Sourial

Staff / Personnel

Mr Avrum Fenson, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1601 in 151.


Consideration of Bill 8, An Act to promote safety in Ontario by prohibiting aggressive solicitation, solicitation of persons in certain places and disposal of dangerous things in certain places, and to amend the Highway Traffic Act to regulate certain activities on roadways / Projet de loi 8, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité en Ontario en interdisant la sollicitation agressive, la sollicitation de personnes dans certains lieux et le rejet de choses dangereuses dans certains lieux, et modifiant le Code de la route afin de réglementer certaines activités sur la chaussée.

The Chair (Mr Joseph N. Tascona): We'll bring the committee to order. I believe, as in the subcommittee minutes, we're going to have 10-minute presentations from each party. Let's start off with the government member.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Thank you, Chair. First, we have received a memorandum regarding some statistics for homelessness and panhandlers from the research officer as a result of Mrs McLeod's request for information, and I would transfer that to the Liberal caucus.

This bill has absolutely nothing to do with homelessness. It has nothing to do with panhandling. It has all to do with preserving our public places. It has to do with safety, freedom from harassment and freedom from disorderly conduct.

I recall that our old friend Sir Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing, when he discussed policing, one thing he said as one of his nine principles was that the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. We seem to have forgotten the second part: disorder. That is exactly what this bill is meant to address.

The government of Ontario believes that people in this province have a right to use public places in safety. They must be able to drive on the roads, walk on the sidewalks and use neighbourhood spaces without being or feeling intimidated.

This is one simple way that citizens measure their quality of life. They want to go shopping or take their children to a park or just go out for a stroll after seeing a show without hassle. They don't want to worry about encountering behaviour that poses a safety hazard, and yet this is exactly what is happening in Ontario.

Activities such as aggressive solicitation, squeegeeing and the disposal of dangerous objects in parks have compromised the safe use of public places.

In 1998, ordinary citizens and police shared their concerns with the Ontario Crime Control Commission. Drivers said that when they pulled up to intersections, their cars literally would be surrounded by squeegee people. Squeegeers would clean windshields without permission, moving in and out of traffic and endangering themselves and the people in the cars.

We heard from parents who said that when their kids play in parks or even in their own schoolyards they have to dodge broken beer bottles, hypodermic needles or used condoms. Children should not have to do that. They should be able to enjoy playing outside without being at risk from dangerous objects.

No vulnerable person, especially the elderly, should have to worry about getting past people who are aggressively soliciting on the sidewalk.

The people of Ontario deserve better than that.

We know from the media that these problems are being experienced across the province, in places like Kingston, Toronto, Ottawa, Oshawa, Hamilton, London and Peterborough.

Police do their best to serve and protect their communities. They tell us that they have been receiving complaints from residents and businesses about squeegeeing, aggressive solicitation and similar activities. However, when the police try to deal with these problems, they find that the current laws are not adequate. The main tool for policing-ticketing-is ineffective on its own.

We have a situation where people are experiencing a problem in the safe use of public places, having to ask police to do something, and the police find they do not have the powers they need. What do they do? They ask the government for action, and rightly so.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution at its 1998 annual general meeting calling on the government of Ontario to make squeegeeing and aggressive panhandling an arrestable offence.

Our government promised in the Blueprint and the throne speech to introduce legislation to stop these activities and we have lived up to our promise with Bill 8, the Safe Streets Act. This bill is a sign of our commitment to ensuring that Ontario's communities are safe places in which to live and raise families.

If passed, Bill 8 would accomplish several things. It would amend the Highway Traffic Act to capture squeegeeing and other commercial activity on the roadway as an offence. It would create new provincial offences, namely, soliciting in an aggressive manner, soliciting in places such as at a bank machine where a person solicited cannot easily move away, and disposing of dangerous objects such as syringes in outdoor places, without taking reasonable precautions. If passed, Bill 8 would give police the power to warn or arrest offenders and it would enable the courts to impose fines, probation or jail for persons convicted of these offences.

We want the Safe Streets Act, if passed, to be an effective and useful law. It is important to this government, as it should be to anyone who values community life, that Ontarians are safe and feel safe in public spaces.

It is unfortunate that some people who see the problem and understand its impact on community life want us to leave things as they are. They would have us leave the police ill-equipped to handle these kinds of unsafe behaviour. That is simply unacceptable.

Yes, there are complex reasons why some people engage in activities such as squeegeeing and aggressive solicitation. Yes, many of the underlying causes relate to social issues. We acknowledge that. However, government programs are available to guide such individuals into activities that offer more hope and a better future.

The Safe Streets Act proposes to establish boundaries for behaviour so that community life can be enhanced for all. Our government is doing what needs to be done to protect the safe use of public places.

I am proud to be part of a government that takes leadership seriously and which responds in a responsible way to matters of public concern.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martiniuk. Next up is the official opposition.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): This bill is the first bill put forward by this government on the issue of criminal justice, on the issue of the safety of our streets. I've said before in the House and I'll say here-nobody has disagreed with me to date-that it is the flagship of the safe streets policy of this government. In that regard, with great respect to the bill, it is a joke.

The bill is going to shoo squeegee kids from one street corner to another. How do I know that? Well, I did my homework. I looked at the example of what happened in Montreal and the laws that were passed in the city of Montreal. The experience was that if you send police out to regulate squeegeeing and panhandling and you use the blunt regulatory tool without more, what will happen is that you will simply shoo the squeegee kids and the panhandlers from one street corner to another.


The better approach, and the approach that has been taken in other jurisdictions, is one in which a combined effort is made not only on regulatory grounds but also through diversion techniques, the use of government agencies and workers and the creative use of courts and prosecutors and police, but also government agency workers to try and get assistance for people who want assistance.

Now, as with any sector of our society, there are going to be people who refuse to co-operate and refuse assistance and refuse a leg up, as it were, but by conceding, as this government does, that there is only one approach, and that is one which appeals to the lowest common denominator, the government has abandoned all those opportunities to actually be successful in cleaning up the streets.

I, for one, think it is government's job to play a role in keeping our streets safe. In response to that, the best case for the bill was made by Ms Knowles for the Yonge Bloor Bay Association, when she referred to the bill as a first step. Her argument-and I've heard Ms Knowles's argument not only in this committee room but outside this committee room-is that it's better than nothing. In fact, that's not true. It is worse than the status quo, for this reason: If you provide only one route-and the police are provided one route here, and that is arrest, detention, and then theoretically they'll go in front of a justice of the peace or a Highway Traffic Act judge and be sentenced-then it's the equivalent of imposing the sentencing regime before you impose the conduct you're trying to forbid and the conduct you are trying to promote. So the first step isn't going to work because the second step is such a waste of time. Talk to any prosecutor, talk to any prosecutor in the Highway Traffic Act court or in the provincial offences court, talk to any justice of the peace, talk to any crown attorney and they will tell you that they are not going to vigorously pursue these cases. They are going to send these people right back out on to the street.

I'm not proposing for a moment that we just give in and that we take this anarchical approach and say, "Well, there's nothing that can be done; therefore we will do nothing." I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the government had an opportunity to look at what was done in the city of New York and the city of Vancouver and to adopt the best practices and do something constructive instead of what's happening, which is that these people are going to be shooed in through one police car door and shooed right back out through the other. And they're going to be back on the streets a year from now, as per Montreal.

It's interesting that even those who spoke in favour of the bill were critical of, to use the words of Ms Knowles, criminalizing the homeless and the poor. "Find a real solution," she said. "We have to create incentives for the construction of housing," she said. "We need solutions for homelessness and poverty," said Ms Knowles, who spoke in favour of this bill.

As I said to her and as I'll say to the government again, there's nothing in this bill which addresses any of those items. I don't need to tell you about all the submissions before this committee to the effect that the bill is not going to work, that the bill is the wrong approach. Mr Borovoy said that the bill is mean and silly, and a number of other groups said that there are people in the cities of Ontario who need assistance of government, and this is certainly not going to provide them with assistance.

Presumably we want to provide these people who are on the streets with alternatives, better alternatives than the one they have. The Attorney General has said as much before. He has said: "We as a society and we as a government just can't let people lie on a grate or under a bridge. We have to do something to help them." Well, this is not doing anything.

It is the concession by this government that changes need to be made to the Mental Health Act that I find the most unconscionable, because the concession means that knowing full well that there are people out there in the streets who need treatment and who need assistance from the government through changes to the Mental Health Act, this government has gone forward with a first step of what? Incarceration or fines for the mentally ill. Instead of first amending the Mental Health Act, instead of first providing some better alternatives, this government is committed to incarcerating the ill, incarcerating the sick, incarcerating the homeless.

The joke of the bill is that no justice of the peace is going to incarcerate somebody for a squeegee offence. No justice of the peace is going to incarcerate somebody for asking for money. So we're not going to be any further ahead. Some may, if they have rap sheets, find themselves with a criminal record, and as a result of that, they are going to be in a worse position. They are not going to become productive members of society and the taxpayers that I know this government-or I hope this government-would want them to be.

Lastly, making used condoms, used syringes, broken glass and people as the target of the same bill is offensive. These people are not garbage to be swept from our streets. This garbage needs to be cleaned out of the parks and off the streets, and there's nothing in this bill that will do that. In fact, I'm quite concerned that those responsible citizens who do provide safe means of disposing, other than through public means, such as the Starbucks on Queen Street across from CITY-TV, may be liable under this act for either aiding and abetting or otherwise disposing under the provision. I'll speak to that in a moment.

So the bill is not going to work. The bill is an insult to the intelligence of Ontario voters. We will see a year from now that there has been no solution, that there has been a furthering of the problem, and that all of those who came in here, but for a couple of those who made submissions, will unfortunately-and it will not be a proud moment for me, I can tell you-be right, that you can't sweep people under the streets. This is the sweep-it-under-the-rug act, and we will not support it. As we heard from the standing committing submissions, it is not supportable.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Bryant and I concur. He speaks of the bill as an insult to the people of Ontario, but this process has been even more insulting, one reflecting on the people who were here yesterday, people like Alan Borovoy, whom I've known for over 30 years now, who is the dean of civil liberties law in this country and acknowledged internationally. To bring Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association before this committee to tell him that he has but 10 minutes to address this legislation, which has serious repercussions when it comes to civil liberties, is an insult.

And that quite frankly goes for each and every presenter who was here, each and every one of them, who had but 10 minutes, and in the largest number of cases, because of that serious time restriction members of the committee were denied any opportunity to try to flesh out what it was that those people had to say, all of them with important things. I thank all of those people.


Let me address in particular, because I recall Mr Martiniuk's motion which effectively restricted the right of opposition members in combination to select witnesses: At the end of the day, the government had but three witnesses who the government hoped would support the legislation but who fell far short of doing that. Please, Mr DeFaria, recall the submission by the Yonge Bloor Bay Association. Let me tell you, I'm familiar with the area-I don't shop there frequently but I'm familiar with it-and I have every sympathy for those business people. You know, as a result of your professional background-let's go through the list of grievances.

Drinking and fighting in the back laneway: Far be it for me to express an opinion about criminal law, but I think some might refer you to the sections of the code that deal with causing a disturbance in or near a public place.

Next incident: Surely assault and threatening fall under the Criminal Code.

Next incident-Mr DeFaria, if I'm wrong, say so-surely assault by trespass is a somewhat obscure section of the Criminal Code but one which would be utilized as well as trespass itself, and the right to remove by the police.

In the final incident illustrated, Mr DeFaria, surely you know that this can be intercepted by way of police intervening using the long-standing legislation against public intoxication which permits the police to arrest people who are intoxicated in a public place.

Although I have great sympathy for that organization, clearly your legislation doesn't deal with it, Mr DeFaria, and clearly the failure of the community to respond to those serious grievances is a responsibility of your government's underfunding of policing and failure to provide adequate resources to police so that they can use the existing Criminal Code to deal with those particular issues. If you haven't been able to do it with the Criminal Code, how in God's name are you going to do it with this bill? It's not a matter of the legislation not being there; it's a matter of the right things not happening out there in the community so that police can intercept and deal with those matters to protect those business people-and I'll agree with them-from those things that they came here concerned about.

I also recall very well and I listened very carefully to the comments of Ms Orwin, and I have great sympathy for her. I know that Mr Smitherman was here and was very interested in what was being spoken of by Ms Orwin. Interestingly, Staff Sergeant Ken Kinsman in some respects dealt with some of the same matters. If the police don't have the capacity now to apprehend hookers, johns, pimps and drug dealers-Ms Orwin talked about hookers having public sex with their johns while their pimps are supervising. The police don't have the resources now, with the Criminal Code, all of those things being offences under the Criminal Code, and you know it. You as a lawyer know it. If the police can't deal with it now, what does your bill do to enhance the police capacity to respond to these matters? Nothing, Mr DeFaria, nothing.

When I speak of process, again I speak of the whole process of committee. This committee sat through a number of submissions yesterday. We were restricted to but one afternoon, and quite frankly this debate is restricted to but half an hour. The 10 minutes allocated to each party will consume but half an hour, and then the sections will be rammed through. Mr DeFaria, you tell me about the fairness, because really aren't all of us interested in fairness? Without criticizing any individual, because I know that people don't come here of their own accord-they're sent by the whip-but one of your committee members who was here yesterday listening to the submissions isn't here today to vote on the bill. She's replaced by another person. I understand what that means. No disrespect to that new member of the committee, but there is no Hansard of those submissions, only a portion of them. The smallest number of them were presented in writing. So your caucus thinks it's OK to bring a caucus member here to vote on this, section by section, when that caucus member hasn't had the benefit of hearing those submissions. What does that say to members of the public who came here, who prepared those submissions? It says that you hold them in disdain.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): Mr Chair, I'm wondering if the member will give me the rest of his time to respond to him.

Mr Kormos: Not in a New York minute. I didn't impose the time allocation and I'm prepared to live with it. You've got to live with it too, Mr DeFaria.

Mr DeFaria: You've asked questions of me and direct all your comments to me-

The Chair: Mr DeFaria, Mr Kormos has the floor.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Chair.

The Chair: Three minutes.

Mr Kormos: This bill is very much about homelessness. It's very much about poverty. It's very much about young people who look different from you and me. Clearly, it's not about prohibiting or criminalizing conduct; it's about prohibiting and criminalizing certain types of people.

As we illustrated yesterday, when middle-aged, middle-class business-suited men squeegee, it doesn't have the same quality of squeegeeing under this bill. What you're really doing is saying that you, the Conservative Party, don't like kids with spiked hair or whatever colour hair and whatever assortment of earrings and tattoos out there doing that.

You've indicated it's OK for firefighters on Labour Day weekends to stand in the middle of intersections-and I agree with that-to solicit funds for muscular dystrophy, even though it would in fact be an offence under the act. But you say it's OK for them to do that, you see, because you're condemning, not the act, you're condemning the individual.

With respect to solicitation, surely you're not suggesting that my colleagues from any number of churches that proselytize in public places be prohibited from doing that. Surely you're not suggesting, as Mr Borovoy indicated, that a white, middle-class person in their suit couldn't ask a bystander for a quarter to use the payphone. You're not condemning the conduct; you're condemning the person, persons and class of persons.

This bill is a shameful and brutal reflection of an attitude that prevails in this government that reminds us of totalitarian regimes. I've been to some of them, and begging is similarly prohibited, because those regimes want to hide the fact that they also contain and create circumstances of poverty. Rather than addressing poverty, they criminalize the poor. Rather than attacking homelessness, you've attacked those women and men in our communities and in our province who are homeless.

This is a shameful piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that is unenforceable, that at the same time can be used and, I predict sadly, will be used very selectively to sweep the streets clean, to sanitize them, to eliminate the symptoms of this government's disdain for the poor and the young so that tourists and in fact maybe members of this government will feel more comfortable walking their streets without being confronted by the reality of poverty, by the reality of homelessness, by the reality of youth unemployment, by the reality of young people who have been abused and beaten and scarred who find themselves out on the streets struggling to make a loonie or two by squeegeeing windows or indeed by panhandling. My God, should they dare do it in such a way? That means that they have to make contact with the person who they seek to be the donor.

You are creating a community and a province about which very few of us should feel any pride whatsoever.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. I have a request for payment of travel expenses by the National Anti-Poverty Organization for the period before us yesterday. It's in the amount of $1,186.59. They came from Ottawa. Do I have a motion for payment or consideration?

Mr Martiniuk: So moved.

The Chair: Moved by Mr Martiniuk. All those in favour?

Mr Kormos: Debate, please.

The Chair: Of course.

Mr Kormos: I want to indicate to Mr Martiniuk that I will be supporting his motion to reimburse this organization. I also want to apologize because I neglected, as did other members of the subcommittee, to anticipate this. Quite frankly, we should have anticipated it so that the clerk could have advised-as it was, the clerk was compelled to advise groups that they were entitled to submit requests but she couldn't offer them any guarantee, and that's because the subcommittee had neglected to address this issue.

So first I apologize, and I hope that in the future we'll use this experience, and we should always consider that. Even though this bill is not a modest amount, it certainly was far cheaper than the committee travelling to Ottawa, and I acknowledge that.

Also, look at this. These people, without any assurance of being reimbursed, felt so strongly about this bill that they incurred expenses of almost $1,200 for a mere 10-minute-

The Chair: I have to commence the proceedings, with respect to the rules.

Mr Kormos: Oh, I'm sorry, Chair. Is it 4:30?

The Chair: Is there approval of this invoice?

Mr Kormos: Carried.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Is there time for one further comment before the motion is placed?

The Chair: Unfortunately, no. We're at 4:30 now.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess, please, pursuant to rule 127 of the standing orders.

The Chair: Do you want to vote on this-

Mr Kormos: No. We have a right, pursuant to the standing orders, to a 20-minute recess, pursuant to standing order 127.

The Chair: Well, I haven't commenced into these proceedings yet.

Mr Kormos: It doesn't matter. It's still a vote.

The Chair: Then we won't deal with this.

Mr Kormos: You just called it, though, and I've asked for a recorded vote and for a 20-minute recess.

The Chair: Unfortunately, a 20-minute recess only applies to clause-by-clause. If you want, I'll let you vote on this-

Mr Kormos: Then deny it, and you have every right to deny that, if that's your interpretation of the standing orders.

The Chair: I think everybody's in favour of this? Agreed?

Mr Kormos: Carried.

The Chair: OK.

I'm going to read from the House so everybody understands the rules right now:

"That at 4:30 pm on the final day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and not later than November 30, 1999, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed, pursuant to standing order 127(a)."

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Chair: May I understand whether or not this is a referral motion specific to this particular bill or whether this is a standard referral motion for committees' operations?

The Chair: This is dealing with this particular bill, Bill 8.

Mrs McLeod: Because I do want to express my concern about the fact that this referral motion essentially provides for time allocation without there having been any discussion of time-allocating the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

The Chair: Well, this is more-

Mrs McLeod: I trust, Mr Chair, if I may complete my point of order, that this will not be something that is taken as a standard format. If it is, then we'll be in the position we were just in in terms of the last motion, which is approving travel expenses for people who have to travel to Toronto. Although I think they should be paid, I don't accept the fact that it's better to have people travel here than for the committees to travel outside of Toronto because of a time allocation motion which makes that impossible.

The Chair: That's not a point of order for this.

Mrs McLeod: Actually, Mr Chair, it is, although I gather that we're not allowed to have any-

The Chair: I read you the House motion. That's no point of order. Let's proceed.

Shall section 1 of Bill 8 carry? All those in favour?

Mr Kormos: No. Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.

Mrs McLeod: The deferred vote is not supposed to be held until the completion of the clause-by-clause.

Mr Kormos: Please read the time allocation motion, Chair.

The Chair: It's already been read.

Mr Kormos: Well, read it so you understand what the purpose is.

The Chair: It's already been read. Who is opposed?

Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess.

The Chair: We're right in the middle of the vote; after the vote.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 1 is carried.

Shall section 2 carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote; 20-minute recess, standing order 127.

The Chair: You have to ask for the recess before the recorded vote.

Who's in favour?


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 2 shall carry.

Mrs McLeod: A 20-minute recess.

The Chair: Shall section 3 carry?

Mrs McLeod: I asked for a 20-minute recess.

The Chair: OK, a 20-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1635 to 1655.

The Chair: We left off at section 3.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair: The time allocation motion indicates that upon request for a recorded vote, that vote shall-and it's mandatory-be deferred. That's what the time allocation motion says. It's my submission to you, and this one is respectful, as compared to most of my other submissions-


Mr Kormos: Well, I'm being candid.

The Chair: I'm listening.

Mr Kormos: -that the votes taken to this point have no validity. To comply with the time allocation motion-and this Chair would argue, very correctly, that we have to strictly comply with it-those votes have to indeed be deferred. So the votes are null and I would suggest the Chair can correct that by indicating that they're null, and that they be deferred until all the sections have been moved, as the time allocation motion requires.

The Chair: Sections 1 and 2? OK, that's fine.

Section 3-

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Chair, and I'll be very brief: I had requested some information to be tabled, and I would ask whether or not there is any information to be tabled before we reach the completion of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Mr Martiniuk: I provided that to your colleague.

The Chair: At the beginning, yes.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Sections 1, 2 and 3 are going to be deferred to the end.

Shall section 4 carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: OK, deferred to the end.

Shall section 5 carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: That will be deferred to the end.

Shall section 6 carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: It shall be deferred to the end.

Shall section 7 carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Shall section 8 carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Deferred to the end.

Shall section 9, the short title of the bill, carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Deferred to the end.

Shall the title of the bill carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Deferred to the end.

OK, Shall section 1 carry?

Mr Kormos: Chair, pursuant to standing order 127 and the time allocation motion, I am requesting a 20-minute recess. The time allocation motion indicates that a 20-minute recess shall be provided for, prior to the putting of the question for the recorded votes.

The Chair: We've already had a 20-minute recess, so we're going to proceed.

Shall section 1 carry?

Mr Kormos: It's a recorded vote so you have to put it to the members.

The Chair: All those in favour?


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 1 carries.

Shall section 2 carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 2 carries.

Shall section 3 carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 3 carries.

Shall section 4 carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Shall section 5 carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Shall section 6 carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Shall section 7 carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Shall section 8 carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Shall section 9, the short title of the bill, carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Shall the title of the bill carry? Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Shall Bill 8 carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote. I'm requesting a 20-minute recess pursuant to standing order 127.

The Chair: We've already had our 20-minute recess. Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Bill 8 shall carry.

Shall Bill 8 be reported to the House?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.


Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott, Martiniuk.


Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.

The Chair: Bill 8 shall be reported to the House.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to express my appreciation to Mr Fenson, who was the research officer here yesterday. He did a very fine job of compiling what was available in terms of statistics on homelessness from other reports that had been presented. I assume, therefore, that the second part of my request, which was any government information, was not available and therefore that was provided. It's information that Mr Fenson was able to cull from other reports that was made available. I want to thank him for the effort he made to provide some data for this committee.

The Chair: This committee shall adjourn until Monday at 3:30 pm to deal with Bill 9.

The committee adjourned at 1701.