SAFE STREETS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA
SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES
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.
1610
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.
1620
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.
Ayes
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.
Nays
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?
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
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-
Laughter.
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?
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Section 1 carries.
Shall section 2 carry?
Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Section 2 carries.
Shall section 3 carry?
Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Section 3 carries.
Shall section 4 carry?
Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair: Shall section 5 carry?
Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Shall section 6 carry? Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Shall section 7 carry? Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Shall section 8 carry? Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Shall section 9, the short title of the bill, carry? Recorded
vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Shall the title of the bill carry? Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
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.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
The Chair:
Bill 8 shall carry.
Shall Bill 8 be reported to
the House?
Mr Kormos:
Recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Martiniuk.
Nays
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.
