role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 21, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L091 - Mon 21 Jun 1976 / Lun 21 jun 1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO NEW HOMES WARRANTIES PLAN ACT (CONTINUED)

LAKE SUPERIOR BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT

THIRD READING

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSPORT SYSTEM

MINERAL PRODUCTION TAX REVENUE

HABITAT CONFERENCE

MEETING AT WHITEDOG INDIAN RESERVE

COMPENSATION FOR SILICOSIS CASE

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

BOOKS BY MARGARET LAURENCE

USE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

CLOSURE OF ARENAS

HAMILTON MATCH PLATE CO.

KUSTOM ENTERPRISES

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DAY CARE

INFESTATION OF ARMY WORMS

SUNDAY SHOPPING

MILK PRODUCTION

ARREST OF STUDENT AT WESTERN UNIVERSITY

NEW TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT LIMITATIONS

DUMP TRUCK RATES

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN ACT (CONTINUED)

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF THUNDER BAY AMENDMENT ACT

PROVINCIAL PARKS AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READINGS

ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

ESTIMATES, CABINET OFFICE

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we will have regular proceedings at 2 o’clock. Therefore, this morning I would begin with the second order.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 81,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any

section and, if so, to which section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman I gave notice on Friday last, when I spoke on the second reading of this bill just before the adjournment on Friday, that I intended to move an amendment which was consistent with the decision and direction given by the convention of the New Democratic Patty 10 days ago as to what position the caucus should be on this question.

Mr. Renwick moved that clause (

c) of

section 1 of Bill 81 be amended by adding thereto the following:

(ea) providing a

schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.

Mr. Renwick further moved that

section 1 of Bill 81 be amended by adding thereto subsection 2 as follows:

(2) The regulations made under clause (ea) of subsection 1 shall be filed pursuant to the Regulations Act not later than July 1, 1977.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Inasmuch as the second part of this amendment deals with subsection 2, perhaps we should deal with these individually, or is it the wish of the committee that we deal with them collectively?

Mr. Renwick: The addition is simply to add a subsection 2 to

section 1 and is an integral part of the first portion of the motion which I moved. I would, therefore, suggest that we put the whole matter as a single entity.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, that is satisfactory to us.

Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. member for Riverdale wish to speak further?

Mr. Renwick: Not at this moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: I feel the amendment before us is one which our party cannot support and not only that, the amendment in fact is a demonstration of why it is that the party seated to our right, the New Democratic Party, can never govern the Province of Ontario.

I think you are aware, Mr. Chairman, as is everyone else, that the New Democratic Party won 38 seats in this Legislature. They did so on the basis of a programme which was presented to the people of Ontario. They proudly trumpeted the fact that they were the party that raised issues and presented solutions. I have here in front of me a part of that programme headed, correctly enough, “Programme.” There are a number of things written there. One of them says “An NDP government would phase out over a maximum of two years all non-refillable soft drink containers.” We are now told that all that is simply to be considered inoperative.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s another flip-flop.

Mr. S. Smith: We in this party made a number of procedural changes of mind earlier in this session in order to accommodate the people of Ontario but never have we gone back on the platform that we sought votes on before the people of Ontario in the last election.

We are told that they have had a convention since then, that it has been drawn to their attention that many jobs are in jeopardy. We worry about that too and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) made clear that he worries about it as well. We all do. But does that mean we are to read every bit of this programme with various provisos added such as, if we hear from unions in the meantime we may have to drop these parts from our programme?

On that same sheet of paper where they point out the need for a land-use programme, are we to assume that that’s naturally dependent on the fact that there will be no representations in the meantime from some farmers who oppose it?

When we read that they want to oppose the Maple Mountain ski resort complex, are we to assume that naturally that opposition depends on no more representations coming forward from various unionized Maple Mountain workers who might oppose that as well?

When we read that the Pits and Quarries Control Act will be enforced in a different manner, are we to presume that the NDP means they will only enforce it, provided they don’t hear from pits and quarries union people in the meantime, telling them that they mustn’t continue to oppose it?

What in their programme is to be believed and what are we to say is dependent upon getting the word from the union bosses? That is the question and that is why this party, which is fundamentally divided between a labour party, a socialist party and a liberal party, can never govern. That is why the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) can stand in this House and say that doctors should all be on salaries and the member for Durham West (Mr. Godfrey) can stand and say that doctors should be paid on a fee-for-service basis. The member for Durham West must be in a very difficult position.

I can understand why he might not be here this morning. He was drawn into that party because of their environmentalist stand among other things and he finds himself having to deal with the socialist views of the member for Parkdale and the labour union trumpetings which are now being presented by the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I wonder if the hon. member would return to the crux of the amendment.

An hon. member: How about him starting?

Mr. S. Smith: It is the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruston: He is right on the amendment to the bill.

Mr. S. Smith: The amendment is a five-year hoist. The member for Durham West, Mr. Chairman, I remind you, stood in this House and berated the government for a six-year delay in bringing forward something to do on the business of non-refillable non-returnables. I will tell you after watching the government’s delays and listening to this party, I have come to the conclusions that the 38 seats they are sitting in are non-refillable and the government is non-returnable.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: It is rare for me to have to agree with any member on the government side but let me say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the point made by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) when he rose in this House some time ago was a very good one. He suggested that there are tough decisions to be made, that when it comes to a question of whether you run Spadina through the neighbourhoods of Toronto, thereby creating employment, or allow this present 28 per cent unemployment in the construction and road building industry to continue, sometimes you have to make a decision that opposes the interests of those who legitimately require jobs and work.

It’s this very party, the New Democratic Party, that goes about the province pointing out over and over again how adjustments are possible in this economy, how technology advances, how we all have to adjust and how businesses that complain that they need money from the government to help them adjust are just crying wolf. It is this very party that is always telling us how adjustable people are. They are all adjustable apparently except for some of the union bosses who support the NDP.

We in the Liberal Party feel that we have to come to terms with the planet we are living on. Surely the time has come that we have to recognize the finiteness of the resources of this planet. Surely we have to recognize that pollution cannot just continue and continue, that psychological change has to occur. We have this famous garbage gamble I keep hearing about and in which members of both other parties seem to be very interested. The gamble seems to be whether or not the garbage in the NDP programme is to be believed. The fact is that tough decisions do have to be made. This province cannot elect the government that is unable to make the tough decisions. We have already waited six years.

[10:15]

I know there are problems in the jobs in the glass industry and in the can industry, and we are not suggesting that cans be banned outright immediately. We are suggesting that non-refillable bottles certainly should be, and we agree with the task force that presented an excellent report to the Minister of the Environment. We see no reason to deviate from that particular report and we believe that the Minister of the Environment has given assurances to this House that he will implement, by means of regulation, the aspects of the task force report that are worthy of implementation.

Where are we to start? Where are we to draw the line, Mr. Chairman? Are we simply to continue to assume that the NDP programme is aimed at some distant utopia whenever, in fact, it comes into conflict with the labour unions as they presently exist? Does everything the NDP stand for suddenly get pushed off to the 21st century because of the need for job retraining in the 20th century?

The fact is that the interests of various groups in this province are naturally going to be opposed to the interests of other groups. Life is too complicated for it to be otherwise. If you try to improve the environment you probably work against the interest of an industrialist. If you try and improve the life of some farmers you work against the interests of a proper land-use policy. There are always going to be conflicts and a tough government isn’t always going to have somebody else call the tune.

They are not going to have the big industries call the tune or the big labour unions call the tune. It’s going to be the needs of the people of this country, of this province, of this planet that will come first. This is a shocking climb-down by the NDP. They are fortunate indeed that we are having a morning meeting today because the press gallery is absent.

Mr. Deans: Oh shame.

Mr. S. Smith: But the fact is that this is the first major flip-flop we’ve seen. We know that the NDP programme also contains free university education and we know how they soft-pedal that one as well, because they know perfectly well that that would be again a subsidy for the well-to-do in our society since the poor don’t even get to the gates of the universities or consider getting in. So they push that one to the background as well.

The fact is, the task force is clear. They have studied the matter. It is going to be difficult. We must have retraining. We must have, to some extent, a programme which will help create employment in this province, but you know whenever it is suggested that the small businessmen of this province should be given some assistance so that they can provide the employment that is desired it is the NDP that stands up and opposes them.

It’s the NDP that say you don’t increase any form of taxes except corporation tax. That’s the only one they know how to increase. How is that going to create employment? How is that going to help people retrain for other jobs?

It’s the NDP that would not stand up to any hospital workers at all in the Province of Ontario and say to them, “Yes, under an NDP government you, too, might lose your job, because the fact is we have to cut expenditures.” I have not heard the NDP speak to any employee of the government or of any other group in society to say “You would lose your job if an NDP government were to come around.” They can simply continue to spend and spend and spend. They would continue to protect and protect and the fact is that the province has to make tough decisions --

Mr. Renwick: That is the one correct statement you have made this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and that is what government is about, and that is what this party has just climbed down from in the most shameful way that I have seen in my short parliamentary career here. I want to tell you that the Liberals are committed to a change in this whole philosophy of over-packaging that we have, these fancy bottles, these fancy containers.

We want to come to grips with this planet and this would be a tremendous psychological move in the right direction, and we hope that the minister will, in fact, apply the regulations that he will be able to make under the provisions of this bill in the way in which all of us would like. We understand he’s given an undertaking to bring those regulations before us before their application, and we appreciate that and we think that’s how minority government should operate.

I draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Chairman, and simply say this: The people of Ontario are prepared to move in the direction of conservation, of protection of the environment, of coming to terms with this planet, of making the tough decisions that have to be made to make sure that our way of life can survive in a way that we would all like it to.

We in the Liberal Party are not in any way being dictated to by the big industries and the big unions. We are responding to the voice of the people. I want to promise you, Mr. Chairman, when something appears in the Liberal Party platform, we are going to be prepared to stand by it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We really don’t have any objection to the two amendments that have been submitted by the hon. member for Riverdale. As far as the first amendment is concerned, adding clause (ea), we feel really that it could be considered redundant. If the hon. members would refer to the existing clause (e), which would be just before the proposed subsection, it does give the minister and the government quite extensive powers in “requiring, regulating and prohibiting the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of any packaging or container, or any material or combination of materials used as packaging or a container.” That is quite a broad

section covering all types of containers that would be defined in the bill.

The amendment reads that there will be a

schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years. That phrase, within five years, is important. I would suggest that that clause combined with the new subsection 2 would indicate that at the latest after one year from about this point we could bring in regulations and provide a

schedule as provided in the proposed new subsection.

Again we have no objection to the new subsection 2. As a matter of fact, it is a provision requiring the government to meet a deadline, something that really doesn’t exist in the bill now. In my opinion, the deadline is a reasonable one and one that we can support. With these words, we have no objections to these amendments.

Mr. Renwick: I’m delighted that the government has seen fit to support the very realistic amendment which we’ve put forward. I may say that the basic reason for putting forward the amendment was to give some sense of structure to a programme by the government which would give some assurance to the people in Ontario that there was going to be a phase-out of the non-returnable containers for any beverage in the province.

I think it was important that that be done when one considers the bylaws which were being passed and the private bills, one of which was submitted and others that certainly have been forthcoming, to provide on a very local basis for the ban of non-returnable containers and non-refillable containers. It did seem to us that any realistic assessment of the problem required that it be dealt with on a province-wide basis. We were very concerned, not so much in the good faith of the minister or of the ministry, about its intentions.

We were concerned, however, that there be a visible sign of a structural scheme to be put forward for public discussion and then, in due course, filed as regulations under the Regulations Act showing how this will be carried out, not only from the point of view of those who have significant environmental concerns, but for those who have significant job concerns. It does seem to us that this is the kind of situation in which, without a clear framework under which this phase-out is going to take place, you would otherwise not be seen to be fair to either of the two groups which are very much concerned.

Without drawing it in a very black and white sense, I think it’s fair to say that those who have a basic interest in the job component of the problem, also have very real and distinct environmental concerns as well. I am quite certain that those of us who have real environmental concerns about these matters have very real concerns about the job security part of it.

Therefore without elaborating further, we think that this method will provide a public forum for a discussion of the

schedule and the programme to be put forward by the government by way of these regulations to make certain that it is fair and equitable and recognizes the diverse interests which are concerned in this bill.

We are, therefore, very pleased that the government has seen fit to support this amendment. We think it is worthwhile and we have a feeling it will be applauded by the people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the member for Riverdale to speak to a particular point? Is it his intention in this amendment, and does he feel the wording accomplishes that, to simply say that at some point within five years, a

schedule could be provided and a

schedule could read in any way whatsoever, even that it starts tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, or does he mean that it must be phased over five years? Because his amendment as written now does not indicate that it must be phased-in over a period of not less than five years. In fact, the way it is written, it could happen tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

Could he speak to that point?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the point. I think the language is as clear as it is possible for us to make it. We want to provide a

schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years.

Mr. S. Smith: Tomorrow or the next day?

Mr. Renwick: I tend to try to be realistic about political problems. I think that a planned

schedule is contemplated, whereby at the end of a five-year period there will be an end to non-refillable and non-returnable containers for beverages in the Province of Ontario.

And if, as part of the development of that programme by the government -- and it is a governmental role to develop the programme -- the regulations are filed not later than a year from now, and if in the meantime there is adequate public discussion and consideration which the minister gave us in the sense of assurance that that would be so when we met with him to discuss this bill, then we think that the five years is the end of the period of time during which this programme will be worked out. We are always essentially reasonable about these matters.

I think the wording of this amendment adequately reflects the intention of this party with respect to the solution of this problem.

Mr. S. Smith: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate with interest, as I am sure you did, over all of Friday. A good part of that time was spent sating that we must delay this matter so that the phase-in occurs over not less than five years in order to protect jobs.

Let us be clear, Mr. Chairman, whether this amendment is instructing the minister to phase this in over not less than five years, because that is the time that the NDP thinks it will take to protect the jobs, or whether the five years is just being written in as some type of a deadline and that it could be done in six months. I really think we must be clear on what it is this amendment is doing.

Does the member for Riverdale accept, Mr. Chairman, that the way this amendment is written now means that the minister could introduce it tomorrow, as long as it is within the five-year period -- that it doesn’t have to be delayed so that the phase-in takes place over the five-year transition period, as requested by the convention of the New Democratic Party?

Mr. Breithaupt: Five years if necessary, but not necessarily five years.

Mr. Renwick: -- we had with the minister about this problem, that we are thinking about the same problem; and that is that it will require a significant time span, which we believe to be a five-year period, for such a programme to be implemented and carried out equitably and fairly, having regard to the diverse aspects of the interests of the persons who are concerned.

[10:30]

I am fortunate that we are not having to persuade you as the government as to what the meaning of it is. The minister understands, and we are in complete agreement with the minister, as to what the course of action will be over the next several months as this amendment is implemented. I am quite happy to have the government carry out the intention as reflected in the language of this amendment.

Mr. S. Smith: Is that right? You are going to delay it for five years?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There may be some confusion here. As the hon. member for Riverdale has said, referring particularly to the report of the Waste Management Advisory Board, it takes time to implement a programme, particularly an efficient programme dealing with the distribution and the redistribution of soft drink containers and other types of containers. The waste management report indicates in one of its recommendations that within three years regulations should be drafted. In one instance they recommend they be filed; in the other instance they recommend they not be filed.

They use the time space of three years for non-returnable containers and then they refer to the period of five years, I believe, for those types of non-returnable containers that may be sold and dispensed via vending machines.

I have to disagree with the hon. member for Riverdale if he is saying, as suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton West, that the phrase means not less than five years. I am quite sure that within a framework of that period the intent and purpose of that sub-amendment will be in effect, but certainly the government does not want to be held to a period of five years from today or from July 1, 1977. As I say, by drafting regulations, by phasing in regulations and by having those regulations perused by the opposition and other public groups which may be interested in this whole subject matter, it will take some time.

The hon. member for Hamilton West is correct when he is saying that probably tomorrow or a year from tomorrow I could phase out or prohibit the use or offering for sale of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage. However, that flexibility must exist. The whole intent of this legislation, as the hon. members are aware now, is to give the government a certain amount of flexibility so that the strategy behind the waste management report can be implemented and the regulations can be phased in. I think that it should be made clear that the phrase does not tie the hands of the government for a five-year period.

Mr. S. Smith: If that’s the case, may I ask what the purpose is of adding these words at all to the bill? If the words “five years” are not in fact indicating to the minister that he should delay for five years -- and I agree with him, he shouldn’t -- and if they are not saying that five years is the limit by which he must have acted, if he in fact intends to act immediately, then what do we need the whole amendment for at all?

Could the member for Riverdale explain whether it is anything other than just a lot of fancy words, including the words “five years” somewhere in there, so as to please his labour union friends? Is there any other meaning to the bill? If it is not going to stay the hand of the government, and it is not going to provide a deadline, what is the point of it?

Mr. Renwick: In response to the minister, this clause does read exactly as it is stated in the amendment which is proposed. The purpose of the bill is to provide for a grant of regulatory power to the minister to make regulations providing a

schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.

It is my anticipation that in the light of this amendment, some time during the next year you will provide draft regulations which will be for the purpose of establishing that schedule. And that

schedule will provide the method by which at the end of a five-year period -- namely in 1982, if they are filed on July 1, 1977 -- the problem of the non-returnable, non-refillable container for beverages in Ontario will have been solved. That is the intention of the proposal as we put it forward.

Mr. S. Smith: A deadline, in other words.

Mr. Renwick: I was certain that you had understood that in discussions which we had and I certainly believe that it is consistent with what the convention of this party decided at its convention 10 days ago.

Mr. S. Smith: How can the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) keep a straight face on this one?

Mr. Renwick: This is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I would then simply ask that as a result of the amendment, I presume that the prohibition may not be necessary to have this five-year time in the amendment. It would seem that we are not necessarily producing an amendment which will prohibit these bottles within five years. So it is a situation like that old Mackenzie King phrase, “Prohibition within five years, but not necessarily prohibition within five years” -- depending upon which way you want to read it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to my friends on the left; if they wish to move a sub-amendment under the rules of the House, they are permitted to do so. I would suggest they move their sub-amendment and then we’ll go ahead with the business of the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, as you see very well, what we are talking about here could be construed by some as an effort to confuse and to posture without in fact affecting the legislation at all. If we have an amendment brought before this House, I suspect it is a reasonable thing to ask that it be a clear amendment as to what is going on.

When one mentions five years, Mr. Chairman, surely one is either setting a deadline by which these things must be in place -- and if it’s in place tomorrow, then it is quite acceptable, because that’s within five years -- or, if one is not setting a deadline, one is setting a limit “not less than” which must be adhered to before the legislation is in place. It’s one or the other. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning years at all.

The member for Riverdale refuses to stand in this House and speak like an honest person would do --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. S. Smith: I take that back; I withdraw that.

He refuses to stand up and speak in a clear, straightforward manner on this subject. It’s very simple. Is the five-year period in this amendment supposed to mean it is to be implemented within five years -- at any time within five years -- or is it supposed to mean that the final enforcement must not take place until the five years are up?

That is the question. We are entitled, as representatives who have to vote on this amendment, to understand what the minister understands by it and to understand what the mover understands by it; despite the fact that they’ve had some private conversations which each of them seems to understand differently anyhow.

Mr. Kerrio: That is the way the bill is drawn.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Renwick: I think so, Mr. Chairman; very briefly.

The purpose of the amendment is that at the end of the five-year period -- which would commence on July 1, 1977, when the filing of the regulations would take place -- at the end of that period, the programme of the government would be such that there would be no non-refillable and non-returnable containers for any beverage in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Is it okay if it happens sooner? That’s what I want to know. That’s the question.

Mr. Renwick: If you want it sooner, move your amendment.

Mr. S. Smith: Does this amendment allow it to happen sooner? That’s what I want to know.

Mr. Renwick: May I perhaps try to help the member for Hamilton West?

Mr. S. Smith: Does the amendment allow it to happen sooner? That’s the question. Does the minister understand it is to happen sooner?

Mr. Renwick: The policy of the New Democratic Party is that with the objective of eliminating the use of all non-returnable beverage containers in five years, the NDP would initiate a five-year phase-out.

The government has brought forward a bill granting enabling power to itself through regulations which, if passed, will give it the power, if it chooses to do so, to implement that objective. And that’s our objective. That’s what we are talking about -- a political problem.

Our objective is that at the end of a five-year period, commencing on July 1, 1977 -- which in my calculations would take us to July 1, 1982 -- the objective under the programme, equitably worked out, would be to eliminate non-returnable beverage containers in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, the minister is going to have regulatory powers governing this matter. Consequently, he is going to take direction from this proposal and he is going to exercise that power. We cannot vote intelligently, given the fact there are some private meetings involved, unless we know how the minister understands this. If he won’t give us a clear understanding, then we’ll have to ask the ruling from the Chair as to what this particular amendment means. Is it merely a deadline or can it happen before? That is the question. That is the essential matter.

The NDP is attempting to have it both ways, and they can’t. I will insist that the minister give me his understanding. Can it happen before 1981 or 1982, according to the minister’s understanding of this amendment -- notwithstanding his private conversations with the member for Riverdale?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, am I led to believe that the leader of the Liberal Party, who announced at the beginning that he would not support the amendment, is now considering the possibility -- if he understands it the way he wants to -- that he will now support the amendment? Is that what you’re saying?

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s what he says.

Mr. S. Smith: Until we vote, we consider everything. What is the matter? You can’t have it both ways; let’s have it clear.

Mr. Renwick: May I, Mr. Chairman, say to the --

Mr. S. Smith: We won’t support a ban that takes five years. That’s for sure.

Mr. Renwick: -- leader of the Liberal Party --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- and if he is not aware of it, to the House leader of the Liberal Party; that if the Liberal Party wishes to move a sub-amendment to this amendment --

Mr. S. Smith: You won’t get us to do your dirty work for you.

Mr. Renwick: -- in order that they can let us know what their position on this amendment is, we will be glad to consider it.

Mr. S. Smith: As soon as we understand the amendment, we will let you know what our position is.

Mr. Renwick: In the meantime, the explanation which I have given I am sure is clear to the minister. I don’t mean by that that he necessarily agrees with it, but that is the intention of the amendment which we propose.

Mr. S. Smith: Is it a deadline or a limit?

Mr. Breithaupt: I appreciate the suggestion made by the member for Riverdale which would, by the placing of the amendment from this party, allow his party to avoid the situation as to whether this will be within five years or at the end of five years. If it is the understanding of the minister and of the member for Riverdale that this is to happen at the end of five years, then certainly it is something which we cannot support.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Mr. S. Smith: Which one is it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Chairman, I can’t help but be repetitious. I had to read the language of the amendment presented to us and the conclusion that we had from that amendment -- and there has been some confusion, and I regret it. There was a phrase used, “within a five-year period” -- and now the phrase is “within five years of the use, offering for sale, or sale in Ontario” -- and so on. In my opinion, within five years meant not later than five years and it does not mean not less than five years.

I question really, despite the importance that the hon. member for Riverdale may attach to this, in light of the recommendations of the Waste Management Advisory Board, and some of the remarks I made on Friday in respect to the phasing in of regulations, whether this is all that important to the hon. member.

[10:45]

I realize that a resolution was passed at the NDP convention a week or so ago and this matter was discussed. However, I think that to tie the hands of the minister and the government for what amounts to a six-year period is not acceptable to either the government or the minister, and I don’t think that the hon. member for Riverdale should expect that it should be.

Mr. S. Smith: Okay, that’s it. Now we know.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have a programme and we have recommendations that have been submitted to the government --

Mr. S. Smith: Want to withdraw the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- after years of contemplation about this whole subject matter. These are in a report that took at least a year to compile and in which I have a great deal of faith as being the strategy and the route to take in respect to throw-away containers. I would suggest that the amendment, as presented here, is acceptable to us and that it means just what I said it means.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no disagreement with the statement made by the minister as to the meaning which he has attributed to the amendment.

Mr. Gaunt: Okay, we have got it.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be repetitious, but my understanding with what the minister said is that this amendment means only that he is to act some time within five years, and it could be within a year or two.

An hon. member: Exactly.

Mr. S. Smith: That is my understanding of what he said, and he has not corrected me on this -- and I have stated it many times. I’m certain that that’s correct. It is obvious, therefore, that the amendment being brought in by the member for Riverdale has no effect of delaying this matter for five years in the way in which his convention directed him to. It is obvious that the wording of this amendment, despite his private meetings with the minister, is not designed in any way to protect the jobs that he is talking about.

It is designed merely to go on record saying something that includes the words five years, because it has no effect at all on the minister except to make sure that he acts at least before 1982. The minister has already told us very clearly that he intends to act much sooner than that. That is our understanding of what this piece of paper is about.

Therefore, we would invite the member for Riverdale to withdraw this essentially useless piece of paper, this amendment, which the minister has already said does nothing but assure that he acts at least at some point before 1982, and in no way prevents him from implementing an immediate ban, should he so desire. Let us be clear that the NDP has not protected any jobs with this amendment. The NDP has simply said a few words, a little gobbledegook using the words “five years,” and it thinks that that’s going to fool the people of Ontario. Let me assure the NDP, it will fool nobody.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I again make an effort -- and probably the last effort I’ll make on this particular matter -- to clarify the thinking of the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Withdraw it. It’s worthless.

Mr. Renwick: Let me read to him the whole of the provision of the policy of the New Democratic Party and then, perhaps --

Mr. S. Smith: Withdraw it. Put it into the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- he will then understand why I said to the minister, and why I said during the course of this morning, what I believe the meaning of the amendment is. I find no difficulty in having the meaning attributed to this amendment by the minister coinciding, in my mind, with what I have been saying. Here is policy statement:

“With the objective of eliminating the use of all non-returnable beverage containers in five years, the NDP would initiate a five year phase-out programme on the use of non-refillable beverage containers where feasible alternatives exist. This would be accomplished by -- “

Then we list six particular items to work it out.

If the member for Hamilton West wishes to consider that by tomorrow night there will be a ban on non-returnable containers in the Province of Ontario, then he is misunderstanding the position of the government as we understand it. I understand, with minor exceptions, the government is accepting the provisions of the task force. The timing problem is a very real problem.

Since we are not the government, we are quite content to leave it to this government to take into account the identical concern which we have with respect to an equitable method of phasing out non-returnable containers. We believe that it will take him five years to do so. We take our assurance from the commitment which the minister gave to us in the private meetings, over which there were no controversy whatsoever and which the minister would have extended to you, had you had enough brains to ask to discuss the problem --

Mr. S. Smith: You are not allowed to call somebody dishonest but you are allowed to say he doesn’t have brains.

Mr. Deans: No, he didn’t say you didn’t have brains, he said you didn’t have enough.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- then you could have reached the same conclusion which we have reached, that if the regulations for the phase-out of non-returnable containers are put to all interested groups in this society for public discussion before they are filed, then we are satisfied that the end result of those regulations will be a phase-out over a five-year period in accordance with the intention of the policy of the New Democratic Party, decided at convention, and in accordance with the language contained in the amendment which I have put forward.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the member for Riverdale believes that this will not be accomplished before five years. He has just said so. I believe that the minister does not view it in that light, and certainly this party does not view it in that light. If it’s clear that the amendment, which the minister said he is going to accept, is in the opinion of the member for Riverdale a commitment not to act before a five-year term, then I think the amendment is quite incomprehensible.

Mr. Renwick: That is not what we have said.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for Riverdale has just said he believes it will take five years. I don’t believe it will take five years. I think that the leadership of this government should not allow it to take five years, and therefore I still believe that the amendment is unsupportable.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that the city of Windsor now has special legislation and can pass a bylaw banning non-returnable containers, and if that experiment shows that it is successful within six months or within a year, would the minister be prepared to accept that period of time that it took a small municipality to phase in a programme as the period of time required to phase in his programme?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, not necessarily. It’s very much easier to prohibit the use of non-returnable containers -- and again I would like to know whether that particular legislation refers for example, to a deposit on existing non-returnables so that they are returnable, or are we talking about refillable containers; there is a substantial difference. It’s much easier for a municipality to prohibit the use of non-returnables than it is for a province. All that happens really is that the various companies don’t deliver non-returnable bottles to Windsor, and the people in that city have soft drinks available in refillable containers.

Frankly, I think the passing of a provision in a private bill oversimplifies a very complex system here. If you refer to the recent Waste Management Advisory Board report, you will see there are many things that report feels should be done before there is a ban. They don’t refer to deposits, but before there is a ban there’s a certain strategy, as I have indicated many times during this debate, involving the whole question of an efficient distribution system so that when people bring back empty cans or empty bottles, for example -- if you go the deposit route -- there is a system whereby they are paid a deposit and that those cans and bottles are recycled.

That is why we feel, as the report feels, that there should be a phasing-in of this programme. For example, when Oregon, Alberta and British Columbia practically overnight, eliminated the non-returnables and placed a deposit on all containers there was serious disruption and there was also bedlam in many of the stores. The whole conversion and the change in the system was very costly and the fact is it did very little toward reducing solid waste disposal, which is one of the main objectives in our legislation.

If you take a number of bottles and cans that are being recycled to some depot and then a truck takes those bottles and cans from the depot to the local dump, you’re not really achieving very much, except having a rather costly recycling and returnable system. You’re not achieving what we’re attempting to achieve in implementing certain recommendations set out in the Waste Management Advisory Board report.

It’s hard to make comparisons between a province-wide regulatory control in this industry and just one municipality.

Mr. B. Newman: You’re aware that the city does not intend to impose a ban overnight but it is setting up a committee which is going to study the implications and complications of any legislation it may introduce before it actually introduces legislation. The city is going the public participation route and I would assume that by going that route it would foresee a lot of the problems you’re mentioning here. As a result, I would think and would hope that the legislation eventually introduced by the city would resolve the problem much sooner than you anticipate on a five-year programme.

Mr. S. Smith: Because I believe it’s deliberately obscure, I wonder if the member for Riverdale or the minister would like to comment on whether they might make a change in the amendment, just for the sake of clarification. After the word “prohibition” it says “a prohibition within five years”; could that be changed to “a prohibition over the course of five years”? I believe, from what I heard, the NDP convention said they intend this to be delayed over the course of five years for the sake of adaptability and job creation and so on.

Yet the minister has said, notwithstanding the private conversations which are persistently referred to by the member for Riverdale that his understanding is that all this amendment does is give him a limit; he must act by the end of five years which could easily be a year or two from now.

If the member for Riverdale would like to change his amendment to read as he obviously intends it to mean -- over the course of five years rather than within five years -- at least we would all be clear on what it is he’s talking about and he would talk out of only one side of his mouth. Is it acceptable to him to change it to “over the course of five years” rather than “within five years”?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it’s not acceptable to change the amendment for that purpose.

Mr. S. Smith: Now we know. Now it is clear.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Kerrio: That is posturing. Flip-flopping.

Mr. Renwick: The purpose of the amendment hinges upon a word “schedule”.

Mr. S. Smith: Over the course of.

Mr. Renwick: “... a

schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.”

Mr. S. Smith: What’s wrong with “over the course of”?

Mr. Renwick: The advantage of a

schedule -- and in the absence of this amendment there would be no such

schedule --

Mr. S. Smith: “Within” is only a time limit.

Mr. Renwick: The advantage of the

schedule in this regulation, coupled with the commitment of the minister for public discussion of the problem, is that if there is public satisfaction with the regulation how he does it is the government’s problem. Our convention resolution says how we, as the government, would have done it. How he, as the government, does it is fine.

Mr. S. Smith: Why is the minister accepting that? You know he’s trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Mr. Renwick: We happen to be committed to the proposition that public input would convince the government that it takes a carefully regulated procedure by which --

Mr. Breithaupt: It takes five years.

[11:00]

Mr. Renwick: -- at the end of a period of time, which we believe to be five years, there would be no non-returnable containers. That’s his problem. If he thinks he can do it in a shorter time, that’s his way of doing it.

I’m simply saying that when the public representations are heard with respect to the

schedule which he must put forward for public discussion before it is filed, then it is his problem as to how he does it. If he wants to do it in less than five years, that’s his problem. What our convention resolution says is that if we were the government we believe it is feasible for us to work out such a

schedule so that at the end of the five-year period there would be no non-returnable and non-refillable beverage containers in Ontario.

The Liberal Party may differ, the government party may differ; all we are saying is, in fairness to everyone concerned, there must be a public discussion of the method by which this programme takes place.

I hope that has helped to clarify the position of this party. We think, as we have said in our amendment, if we were the government that’s how we would do it. We think it is possible to do it in a fair and equitable way over that period of time. We are not the government. The government has said that it will accept this amendment to introduce a

schedule for public discussion and for filing a year from now, on July 1, 1977, as to how it would do it within a five-year period.

To the extent that they differ from us, that’s because they’re the government. What we would do is clear in our resolution, and the fundamental key to it is it will be a

schedule publicly discussed, publicly settled, publicly filed and then implemented by the government. That’s a very significant distinction between the government position and our position, but in introducing this amendment at least we will have provided a public forum for the discussion of the method by which this is going to be carried out, and they bear the responsibility as to whether it’s fair and equitable in all the circumstances.

I hope that’s made it clear. I don’t quite know what the position of the Liberal Party is. The position of our party is as stated in the convention resolution and as stated in the statement which we put forward in this amendment. We recognize that the government is not prepared to say that it will be over a five-year period, but that’s the position of this party. That’s the position of this party, and in the amendments to this bill, I want to get the public commitment of the

schedule of the method by which this will be done --

Mr. Breithaupt: There’s nothing about that in the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: -- a

schedule of the method by which this will be done, coupled with the public commitment of the minister to making certain that there will be public discussion.

Mr. S. Smith: There is nothing about this.

Mr. Renwick: You can be quite certain that if we were the government we would be phrasing this within the framework of our convention resolution. We’re not the government. What we are trying to do is accomplish in this political process the maximum amount that we think we can achieve toward implementing our policy, and we did it by this amendment. We did it by this amendment because the government has said it will accept this amendment; it won’t accept anything more.

Mr. S. Smith: They can’t.

Mr. Renwick: We’re quite prepared to accept that much, the government coming this far toward the position of this party. We’re not trying to put our

interpretation on what the government will decide is the meaning of this clause. All we’re saying is we want to get as much of what we as a government would have implemented in this legislation, and I’m quite satisfied if at the end of this morning, or tomorrow morning, or the next morning, we have a commitment from the government that it will go publicly with draft regulations, that it will prepare this kind of a

schedule and that it will listen to what people have to say and if, as a result of that, it phases them out within three years, or 3½ years, or three years and eight months, or two years and eight months, that’s the government’s problem and that’s what we’re saying to it. We know very well that in trying to phrase this amendment we can’t always get exactly what we want, but we are prepared to go with this amendment because it is as far as we believe we can go as the opposition party in implementing the policy of the New Democratic Party in the face of very real differences of opinion with the government.

By the time it is worked out, by the time the

schedule is prepared, by the time the public discussion has taken place, I am prepared to have a private bet with the minister and with the member for Hamilton West that it will be, comme ci comme ça, about five years from July 1, 1977, when the equity of the situation will permit the objective to be achieved.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Hamilton West, it seems to me that the comments are becoming a bit repetitious and perhaps that we are recycling the debate. We should limit our comments a bit when it becomes repetitious.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I invite you to understand that I don’t enjoy engaging in repetitious debate of this kind. But it is very clear that the purpose of this amendment which does absolutely nothing, according to the member for Riverdale’s last statement, to bind the government to delaying the matter for five years, is merely to somehow give what he calls a vehicle for expression of what the New Democratic Party would do if it happened to be the government. Now, one does not present amendments to be incorporated into laws simply as a means of explaining --

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is not for the purpose of giving expression to the New Democratic Party convention resolution.

Mr. S. Smith: That is what you just said.

Mr. Renwick: If it were for that purpose it would have been worded quite differently.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s what you said.

Mr. S. Smith: You said to get as close as possible.

Mr. Renwick: I said it was to get as close as possible to an amendment that the government would accept in the light of our convention policy. That is an entirely different thing from saying that this amendment reflects the New Democratic Party’s convention resolution of the political difficulties of the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: And there is nothing more than that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member has stated the point of order. The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, that’s exactly what I said, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does nothing to alter the law; it does nothing to make it impossible to bring in the ban in fewer than five years; it says nothing about having public consultations or public hearings; it does absolutely nothing except give as much reflection as possible to the New Democratic Party’s position; and it has absolutely no effect on the law, according to the minister and according to the member for Riverdale.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the reason that this repetitive engagement is occurring right now is because I can picture -- as you can sir, in your own riding, when you act as a member other than as chairman -- the postures that will be struck in front of the working people whose jobs are jeopardized by such a ban. They will say: “We thought, we stood, we introduced an amendment that would delay it for five years, and look at the way the minister went and just sneaked it in early.”

Why the minister can’t fathom this ploy is totally beyond me, because it’s perfectly clear --

Mr. Lewis: That’s a very personal viewpoint.

Mr. S. Smith: -- there is absolutely no effect on the law by this particular amendment. It is a pure posture to reflect, as much as is possible, the NDP convention.

Mr. Lewis: Then don’t vote for it. Vote against it.

Mr. S. Smith: And the thing that concerns me, Mr. Chairman, are these alleged private meetings that have occurred between the minister and the member for Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They were taped!

Mr. S. Smith: I want to know exactly what was promised to the New Democratic Party with regard to this ban.

Mr. Lewis: Do you think money changed hands?

Mr. Maeck: Which way?

Mr. S. Smith: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the very amusing comments that the Leader of the Opposition is inserting at this time do nothing to detract from the --

Mr. Lewis: You are not going to draw me into the debate. I don’t want to do that.

Instead, they have come up with something that does nothing to the legislation, that in no way binds the minister to any sure form of delay, that says nothing about public consultation, and they will go out and posture and say “We tried to get you five years.” That is what the game is. You know it, everybody here knows it, and that is why we have had to be so repetitious, despite the clever attempts of the member for Riverdale to obscure the situation. In my best days in March I was not capable of the kind of gymnastics we are now seeing from the NDP.

Mr. Swart: I have listened now on six or seven occasions to the member for Hamilton West getting on his feet and whining and complaining about the amendment that has been put forward by this party. His course is perfectly clear to him. If he doesn’t think there is sufficient clarity, then he can move another amendment to clarify it. If it doesn’t say what the Liberal Party wants to say then he can move another amendment to say what the Liberal Party wants to say. If he doesn’t like it all, then his party can vote against it. I think it is time he either shut up or put up!

An hon. member: That is what you call a political shot.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, this is quite unparliamentary. Really, that is the Darcy McKeough style of discussion.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order. I would ask the hon. members to observe a little better parliamentary language.

Mr. S. Smith: At least it is four letters. It is better than the Treasurer is capable of.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to the House and the Leader of the Liberal Party that it is evident what his intention is. His intention is, of course, to effect a ban immediately and to hell with the jobs, and that’s the unfortunate part of their position and that’s one of the difficulties that you always face in politics.

Mr. S. Smith: They have the guts to bring in a delay.

Mr. Deans: The matter is more important than that. To begin with, no one knows whether it will take five years or not; not I, nor anyone else in the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Except the New Democratic convention. The New Democratic convention knew. They said five years.

Mr. Deans: The sense that we have, of the immense problems that will confront the majority of people in the Province of Ontario who were directly involved in the production of cans and the like, is that it will take, five years to resolve. It may, in fact, take longer to resolve.

Mr. S. Smith: Then have the guts to put it in the amendment.

Mr. MacDonald: Have the guts to move an amendment if you want it clarified.

Mr. S. Smith: You put it in the amendment. Say what you believe.

Mr. MacDonald: Move an amendment if you want to clarify it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, the hon. member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. MacDonald: You don’t understand either the political or the legislative process, that’s your problem.

Mr. S. Smith: Say what you believe. I understand what you are doing; so does everybody else.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I think it would be rather foolish if we were to establish a minimum period of five years only to discover that the ban could have been effected in four years with all of the necessary safeguards for employment and the like taken into account. It would be foolish.

Mr. Kerrio: You want to get by an election on this. Smart move!

Mr. S. Smith: So what is the amendment for then? What is it for at all?

Mr. Deans: What we are saying to the minister is this; that when you sit down to draft your regulations --

Mr. S. Smith: Think of the number five. That is what you are telling him.

Mr. Deans: -- you begin from the position that it will likely take an extended period of time, that you don’t accept the Liberal position that you can do it overnight, that there is recognition paid to the effects and the costs of making this kind of a ban hurriedly and without due consideration. That’s what we are saying.

Mr. S. Smith: But, it doesn’t say it there.

Mr. Deans: We are saying that if it is possible -- if it is possible, and I don’t believe it personally -- to phase in a programme that will not only effect the desires of those people concerned about the ecology but will be threatened in terms of their economy then, of course, you ought to do that.

We are saying to the minister, in fact, the five years could have been 10 years, because it may even take that long, but it certainly will be longer than one year or two years. I am saying to the minister that my main concern is the same today as it was on Friday last, when the member for Hamilton West wasn’t here, and on the other days when I have discussed this same matter.

Mr. S. Smith: It was different from your programme which said you would phase it out over two years; it is changed since then.

Mr. Deans: My main concern in this matter is that we not act in such a way as to threaten the many people whose jobs are directly related to the production of these materials.

[11:15]

I recognize on the one hand that it is desirable for the overall good that we move toward the elimination of the litter we have. But I understand on the other hand that the life expectancy of a great many people and their capacity to earn sufficient in order to provide a decent income for themselves and their families has to be a prime concern, if not the prime concern, of the Legislature.

Mr. Kerrio: Then write it that way.

Mr. Deans: We are writing it that way.

Mr. Kerrio: You are posturing.

Mr. Deans: We are saying to the minister that as you draft your regulations keep in mind that it is better to err on the side of caution, in terms of the ban, and to make sure that all the programmes are in effect and all the necessary legislative actions are taken to ensure that the economies of those few selected people aren’t so detrimentally affected that they will not recover from it.

When I spoke to the minister on Friday in the Legislature I said to him that I had little confidence in the government’s capacity to bring in the kinds of manpower policies necessary. If we had manpower policies already in effect in Ontario which had been able to deal rationally and sensibly with many of the massive layoffs and plant closings which have occurred over the last few years, of course, we could adopt the position of the Liberal Party that they are already there and therefore you can ban the can overnight and the workers may well be taken care of or they may not.

As I see it, because there are no clear policies already in place and because the government hasn’t been able to articulate the position it would take with regard to retraining and the guarantee of certain incomes for people who may be threatened or lose their livelihoods as a result of the legislative action of this parliament, we have to stress caution to the government --

Mr. S. Smith: How can the minister accept such nonsense?

Mr. Deans: -- and that is what we are doing. We are stressing that the government has to be very careful in the way in which it implements the ban. It has to be very careful and test all along the process to make sure that it is not only those workers and their families who are directly involved who carry the burden for what is the common good.

Mr. S. Smith: You are right, but why wasn’t that mentioned in your supplement? You left out a sentence in your programme last year.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t leave out any sentence in the programme. I didn’t draft the programme. The strange thing about this party is that the programmes of the party are drafted by the convention and approved by a convention representative of people from all across the province.

Interjection.

Mr. Deans: Therefore we are not in the position of drafting it sitting here, unlike the Liberals who come up with instant policy overnight, whether or not it is consistent with the policy written in their booklet or otherwise.

Mr. S. Smith: You didn’t say it was only provided -- your next convention agreed. Maybe it is on the back?

Mr. Deans: What I am saying is that we think it will take five years. We think it might take more. When you sit to draft your regulations we want you to pay heed to the fact that we are not going to be riding your back continuously to bring about that ban if there is clear evidence that it can’t be brought in without detrimentally affecting, over a long term, the people of the Province of Ontario who are directly involved in the production of these materials. That’s a concern the Liberal Party doesn’t share with us.

I am going to say to the minister and to the leader of the Liberal Party that one of the difficulties I see is it would be easy to bring in regulations banning these products six months from now. It’s not a matter of drafting regulations to ban them. It’s not difficult to choose any of a number of groups and to make the thing stick legislatively. The difficulty isn’t that at all. The difficulty is in doing it in such a way as to cause the absolute least disruption --

Mr. S. Smith: But not offending the union; yes. I understand.

Mr. Deans: I am offended by that, by the way, and you know better.

Mr. S. Smith: You damn well should be offended. You have gone back on your own programme that --

Mr. Deans: I have not.

Mr. S. Smith: -- said two years and no union provisos.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: What I am saying is that it has to be done in such a way as to cause the least detriment to the people who are most affected by this particular legislation. I don’t understand the Liberal position. I think they would like to ban the can tomorrow morning and would do so if they had the power.

Mr. S. Smith: We will ban the bottle tomorrow. The can will take three to five years.

Mr. Deans: That’s the reason they can’t have that kind of power. They don’t have any recognition of the need of the people in the Province of Ontario who are affected by this.

Mr. S. Smith: Why didn’t you include it? Why didn’t you include that part of it?

Mr. Deans: It is easy for the member for Hamilton West to stand up and talk about moving ahead more quickly --

Mr. S. Smith: It is your programme, not mine.

Mr. Deans: As far as I am concerned the effect on the people who are employed in the business is the effect we have to concern ourselves most with. I don’t care whether they’re unionized or not, because not everyone who is involved or who will be affected detrimentally is in any trade union. There are a great number of people who are not in trade unions who will be affected by this legislation. For the member for Hamilton West to try to draw in a lot of red herrings, in an effort to try to extract his party from a very difficult position, is something that I don’t quite understand -- maybe I do understand, because that is the position he’s taken since the day he was elected leader.

Mr. S. Smith: You are in a difficult position, my friend. We are the ones for the ban. We have always been there. You are the ones in a difficult position. You are the flip-floppers who have gone back on your promise to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: My position is perfectly clear; I ask you, Mr. Minister, to move with deliberation but not to move hastily.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right. That is the first time you have said that.

Mr. Deans: I can suffer the barracking of the Liberals, because I’m talking about real people -- people who have mortgages to pay, who have children to raise, who have problems in the Province of Ontario finding alternative employment --

Mr. S. Smith: The people paving the Spadina are real people too, you know.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: -- people for whom there is no alternative in terms of finding employment at this time, many of whom are getting on in years and don’t have the capacity to go back to school to be retrained for other jobs. Not having that psychiatric hardness, I can’t find it in myself to neglect them.

Mr. S. Smith: The ones who live in apartment buildings are also real people. So are the farmers whose lands you are going to freeze.

Mr. Deans: I say to the minister that as he brings in his regulations, he should remember that we are talking about the effect on people in the province and that, without question, before this ban is fully operative -- assuming that it ever is -- it will take a five-year period to ensure that everyone who is currently involved in the production is taken care of in such a way as to guarantee those people that they won’t have to carry the full burden of what this Legislature does and to make sure that they are not asked to give up unfairly the things they have expected for themselves and their families because of the kinds of attitudes of the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Like the farmer whose lands you would freeze.

Mr. Ruston: Using up all the agricultural land for garbage.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Before I recognize the next speaker, perhaps I should reread the amendment that Mr. Renwick has placed before us so that we will not be repetitious and will only raise new points pertaining to the proposed amendment.

Mr. Renwick has moved that

section 1(

c) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following:

(ea) providing a

schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.

He further moved that

section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto subsection 2 as follows:

The regulations made under clause (en) of subsection shall be filed pursuant to the Regulations Act not later than July 1, 1977.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is going to get hell for bringing it in sooner.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I suppose one learns that sooner or later, in almost every debate, the opposition is going to bring in an amendment which, in some instances, looks after their special-interest groups. Today they’ve succeeded in bringing in just one amendment but one that looks after two of their special-interest groups at the same time.

The point of their amendment, of course, is so that they’ll run out to the environmentalists and say: “Look, George Kerr was prepared to let this thing drag on forever and never bring in any of those regulations. We, the NDP, were the ones who forced him to do it by a given date.” On the other hand, with the eloquence of the member for -- we could pick any one of a number of them, but let’s take the member for Wentworth (Mr.

Deans) -- they will then go to the employees and say: “Look, we told George Kerr there’s no hurry, because your livelihoods, your right to earn a living and so on are so important that, for once, the NDP are not going to push, push, push for action tomorrow morning regardless of its implications on the economy and your right to earn a living.” They’ll go to the employees and say, “We delayed it for five years,” but they’ll go to the environmentalists and say, “We moved it up, we forced it, within five years.”

Mr. Kerrio: It’s smart business.

Mr. S. Smith: So, why accept it?

Mr. Grossman: I understand the game, and they understand the game, and I use the same amendment but for different purposes to different groups.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: I wanted to rise at this particular point to say that the legislation, in its original form, expressed faith in the ministry and the way it’s been run, in order that all of the concerns raised by the opposition and, indeed, by the Liberal Party as well, could be met in a sensible, orderly fashion over the next ensuing years. The minister has made it clear that he intends to solve this problem within the time limit set out in the amendment, and thus the amendment is obviously acceptable to the minister, I understand.

That’s fine. It’s because he’s confident, I suppose, of his ability to perform within that

schedule that he can accept that amendment. I think myself that it would have worked equally well, perhaps better, if some leeway were given so that the ministry could use its hand, play its cards whichever way best met the demands of the employees, the very legitimate demands of the employees, and the problems of industry and the environmental problems that we’re facing.

Let me tell you that those of us on this side of the House, and I suppose my friends in the Liberal Party, somewhat get a little irritated at having the member for Wentworth and others suggest, throughout this debate particularly, that only they are concerned about the jobs of the employees. The minister has been under severe criticism from that party, the opposition party, for many years about the environmental issue, when are they going to buckle down to doing away with the non-refillables, when are they going to bring it about?

Then when the time comes and the minister begins to move very strongly -- I should say, accurately, continues to move very strongly -- then they get a little panicky that perhaps the NDP is going to be blamed for early problems in that industry. So the ministry, with every bit of sensitivity, the same amount of sensitivity for those jobs that the NDP has and maybe even more, says, “Well, we won’t put a definite cut-off date in there, we’ll work toward it, we’ll bring in these regulations, give us the power and we’ll get about it.” Then they start to panic. They don’t want to be blamed, so they’ll bring in their two-way amendment.

I’m confident that the ministry can meet those deadlines -- the minister obviously feels he can -- but I did want to rise at this particular point to get on the record, before it happens, that the opposition is going to take their amendment and walk with it in two directions -- but they’re good at it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’m really disappointed that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick fell for the sophistry of the leader of the Liberal Party this morning and thought for one single moment that that’s what either we were about or anyone in the New Democratic Party was about.

Mr. Kerrio: We know what you are about, Jim.

Mr. Renwick: There’s one thing that we do know how to do better than either your party or the Liberal Party, and that is --

Mr. Ruston: Change places in the middle of the stream.

Mr. Renwick: -- to have our policies made at the conventions of the party.

Mr. Kerrio: Flip-flop when the press isn’t here.

Mr. S. Smith: You lacked the courage to present your policy in the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: I just want to clarify finally, so far as I am concerned, what the amendment is about. I understand quite clearly, and have understood right from the time that this discussion was initiated by our party in a request to the minister to meet, I have understood quite clearly that he was not prepared to accept an amendment which said, “over the course of a period of five years,” or, “within a period of five years,” indicating that that was the phase-out period that he was bound to. I have understood that very clearly.

Mr. S. Smith: Good. Why didn’t you say that right away?

Mr. Renwick: What we wanted to make certain was that we did get an amendment on this bill, acceptable to the government for two purposes and two purposes only. One, that there would be a

schedule in the regulations showing how the government planned to implement is policies with respect to this question. That’s the first point.

[11:30]

The second point, while it is not stated in the amendment, is a commitment made by the minister in this House on second reading -- and which he made to us when we met with him to discuss this bill -- that the regulations would be circulated to all interested parties to the extent that those parties made themselves known to the ministry and to other members of this assembly for discussion and input before they were filed in order that the government could hear the reflection to them of all kinds of representations, but particularly the representations of those persons who are concerned about their jobs.

Our party is sufficiently broadly based across the province that when we have 1,200 people assembled in the convention of the party in Kingston to discuss these matters openly on the floor, in the light of a request which we put as a caucus to ask for a resolution of the problem, that we will honestly and fairly state across the province what the position of this party is. And if anybody thinks that we’ll play footsie with this kind of a regulation, or this kind of an amendment to a bill for the purpose of playing to one group and then to another group, then they mistake, each of them, their party for this party.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, don’t talk nonsense. The member doesn’t have the guts to bring in the amendment he really wanted.

Mr. Renwick: The Conservatives mistake their party; they mistake the character and quality of their party and the character and quality of the Liberal Party for the character and quality of this party.

I am disappointed, as I said, in the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I can understand the problem --

Mr. S. Smith: This is the member’s darkest hour.

Mr. Renwick: I can understand the problems of the member for Hamilton West, who apparently has bottomed out -- I don’t know what that phrase means; it certainly is ambiguous to me.

Mr. S. Smith: We have never gone back on the platform with which we got votes in the Province of Ontario, and the NDP have.

Mr. Renwick: I am certainly saying to the Chair that that is what I mean by the amendment we proposed. Had we thought for a moment that the government would have accepted an amendment which contained the phrase “over the course of a period of five years,” then we would have included that in our amendment. We get always in this assembly what little crumbs we can from the master’s table.

Mr. S. Smith: I wouldn’t even give those guys a crumb; they are crummy already.

Mr. Renwick: Fortunately, the master has to pay somewhat more heed now than he did in other days, so we’ve moved a little bit further. We get certain amendments. We think they’re valuable. We think they’re extremely important. We think that time will tell in the public discussion of the

schedule for which we are requesting the government to assent to, and we will get the kind of programme for the phasing out of non-returnable or non-refillable bottles that will be a good programme simply because of the public input and because this amendment provides for the schedule.

As I said at the beginning, that is as close as we can come to the government. I’m saying to them that as far as we’re concerned, we’re pleased that the minister stated he would accept the amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has not disposed of his “push-me-pull you” doll, because obviously he could present it to the member for Riverdale after that last series of comments.

It seems important for us to recognize the fact that, in the view of the member for Riverdale, he is attempting to bring forward his party’s policy as best he can to a ministry which is not prepared to fully accept it. If he was prepared to bring forward that policy, one would have thought he would have drafted his amendment in those particular terms, because it is clear that this view of what his party stands for is in the amendment he has brought forward. He has chosen to amend this in order to attempt to explain to his own delegates to that convention that they were able to influence the government in a way which should encourage them to continue to draft resolutions.

The minister, however, does not view this in the same light. The minister has explained that he is not intending to be bound by this particular time limit, and we would agree that he should not be bound by this time limit. We believe that the work must be accomplished and accomplished quickly to ban non-returnable bottles in this province and to phase out non-returnable cans, probably within a three-year term,

Mr. Renwick: The member’s leader said three to five years 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is something which the New Democratic Party used to believe in, and it is something which we are prepared to agree to right now.

Mr. S. Smith: The advisory board said three to five years.

Mr. Breithaupt: Certainly three to five years; there’s no question about that it must be done. So far as non-returnable bottles are concerned, we’re prepared, as we have committed ourselves to do and as the New Democratic Party used to commit itself to do, to go on and resolve this problem forthwith.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, I thought, was entirely correct and I hope that if the minister is, in my view, unfortunately talked into accepting this amendment, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick at least and other colleagues who may think as he does will join with us and oppose this amendment.

It is not that we do not care for the jobs which are obviously going to be involved. Of course we care. We care for the jobs as much as we care for the jobs of the men who might be working on Spadina or the men who might be building apartment buildings or the women and men who are involved in every other industry in this province.

We’re not prepared, obviously, to allow the New Democrats to be the only ones concerned presumably with the interests of various groups within this society. If they can carry it off, more power to them, but I think the people of the province are finished with that kind of an approach which on one occasion calls for support of a particular group but on every other occasion does not.

We think this situation must be resolved and the government must be encouraged to accept the task force report forthwith. The minister should proceed to deal with these matters as soon as possible. The time limit which the New Democrats are attempting at least to read into this whole debate is a time limit with which we cannot agree. We certainly believe that the minister should not have his hands bound by this kind of an approach and we cannot support the amendment in view of the way that amendment has been put forward.

Mr. S. Smith: Neither should the minister and he knows it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Breithaupt: We will stack the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall we stack it? Does the committee agree?

Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other

section of the bill?

This completes the debate in committee on Bill 81.

ONTARIO NEW HOMES WARRANTIES PLAN ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 94,

An Act to provide for Certain Protections for Purchasers of New Homes.

section 13:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I believe at the time the committee rose we were considering

section 13 and an amendment Mr. Renwick had moved. Perhaps I should read the amendment to refresh the memory of the members of the committee:

Mr. Renwick moved that

section 13 of Bill 94 be amended by inserting after clause (

b) of subsection 1 the following clauses:

(

c) that the site of the home drains properly;

(

d) that there will be no subsidence of the land beneath the footings of the home or around the building or along utility lines;

and that item (

h) of subsection 2 be deleted.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there’s any need to repeat what I’ve said. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister if he would consider the amendment we have proposed as divisible. If we were to withdraw, with the consent of the House, the question about subsidence and simply keep in subsection 1 of

section 13 -- let me go at it another way: Leave clause (

h) of subsection 2 alone where it is and introduce into subsection 1 of

section 13 the drainage at the site. Would that possibly be acceptable to the ministry as being a matter, to us, of the kind of significance that should put it into subsection 1 of

section 13?

Mr. Drea: No, but I don’t want to leave it at that. First of all, we will turn to the drainage. Under this bill, every home that is built has to be built within the terms of the Ontario Building Code. As you know,

part IX of the building code now covers the drainage immediately adjacent to the dwelling. So that in terms of the drainage very close in on your own lot, or on the dividing line, or in the back or along the utility line -- and I presume when you are talking about the utility line you are talking about the underground one -- this is already covered by

part IX of the code.

Going into the aspect of the subdivision, the municipality now has control over the overall or the master drainage for the subdivision. So really, by putting drainage in here, on the one hand, for any provision that the home buyer would be compensated for, or where repairs would have to be done, it is already there. The warranty already covers that.

If the drainage around that house is not proper, if there is flooding of the basements, or even if you want to go into the subsidence, if there is subsidence because of poor drainage around the house it is already covered and you can be either compensated in terms of dollars or the repairs will be done. So really the question of the drainage is somewhat redundant.

I can understand the concern about it, but your problem is you would really have no way under this warranty, if the original development drainage or the subdivision drainage was done in an improper manner or was not according to the plan that was filed with the municipality, no matter what we had in, you would still have to go after the municipality.

I suggest to you the practice in municipalities has been that where development drainage is done there is a hold-back, or a bond, so that if the swales are done improperly, if the land is drained from back to front instead of front to back, by a miscarriage of the plan, then there is a remedy for the municipality and for the people whose homes are affected. I am not going to say that it has always been carried out properly by the municipality.

There are some municipalities which have been somewhat lax in this, but nonetheless, in terms of this legislation you are protected for the immediate drainage around your home and for the overall you are protected us much as you have ever been.

Quite frankly, I would suggest to you, in the case of this bill, that you are getting indirectly additional coverage, because if the drainage around the house is the responsibility of the builder, then all the contributing factors that go into the creation of a bad drainage around the dwelling, are going to be the responsibility of the people who are carrying the insurance or providing the additional warranty coverage, and they indeed will go after the municipality to make sure that their own payments are lower.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Hall: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would be concerned about the requirement of making the home builder responsible for all subsidence along utility lines, because there is a great deal of lack of control by the builder as to when a lot of these utilities are run in. They include such things as the phone company or the cable company. The builder has no way whatsoever in the quality of the workmanship that these people do, and therefore it has to relate to the powers of the municipality rather than the powers of the individual builder to control the quality of such work.

[11:45]

The bill already covers the subsidence of any land underneath the footings of the home. That seems to be quite clear. With regard to the point that the site of the home drains properly, it is a very broad statement and it is another general redundancy. It seems to me that that is implied in many current pieces of regulation that the individual builder has to follow. The word “properly” in itself doesn’t imply a great deal in our minds; so we don’t see that these particular amendments are adding any particular value to the bill.

Mr. Deans: I am sorry I missed the remarks, though I caught some of them on my speaker. I had to go up and make a call. The difficulty, as I see it, is that many of the drainage problems, the leaks into the basements and the erosion that takes place, occur because the lands are not adequately drained. I heard the parliamentary assistant say there was recourse through the municipality in some instances because of the filing of drainage plans. Was that my understanding?

I have found in the numbers of properties I have had to deal with that if there is recourse in that direction it is of little use to the individual homeowner and that it hasn’t been effective at all. It would seem to me as part of the final approval of an overall project or an individual home that the grade of the property and the drainage that has been approved should be checked. The reason for that is that unless that is checked in the final inspection and guaranteed to be in keeping with the overall plan as filed, then the likelihood of difficulties arising are that much greater.

I don’t know why the government would balk at that. I would have thought that one of the objectives of this legislation was to cut down as much as possible in the problem areas the likelihood of problems arising; that that’s what we would all be striving to achieve and, wherever possible, if by a simple phrase in the legislation, we could eliminate a problem, then we would simply move to do just that. That is what the amendment is really addressing itself to.

What the amendment is saying is that the inspector, in making that final inspection -- and we are going to talk about inspectors in a few moments, I hope -- will not only guarantee that the appropriate interim inspections have been made and that the property of the home itself is in sound condition, but that all of the overall plans as filed for the development have been adhered to and that the drainage is as per the official drainage plan as filed both with the municipality and, in the case of Ontario Housing Corp. properties, with the Ontario Housing Corp.

There is no way for the average individual to be able to tell otherwise. The average homeowner would never know. The average homeowner walking out couldn’t tell whether the drainage was at the appropriate runoff level or whether the swales were in the right place. In fact, they can’t even identify their property lines in many instances and therefore they would be unable to tell. That’s the basic reason for it.

If it is on that final inspection sheet, which is handed over to the property owner and which says that all of these things which are required to be done have been checked and have been done, then it does two things. It puts an onus on the builder to have done them; and it puts an onus on the warranty programme to have checked them. In the most likely circumstances it will have cut down on the after effects of the work not having been done properly.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Deans: Could I have a response?

Mr. Drea: First of all, were it not for

part IX of the Building Code, which specifically obligates the builder to provide the proper drainage around a dwelling -- and it is part of this Act that the dwelling must be built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code -- I would share many of your concerns about drainage.

I agree that up until now, for the homeowner faced with a perennially flooding basement -- and I’m not just talking about a little leak down a crack, which can be taken care of very easily; it’s a very substantial problem -- it has been extremely difficult to move, because the builder has tended to pass the buck to the municipality and back and forth down to a subcontractor who read the plans wrong.

Under this legislation -- and let’s just take as a practical example a basement that floods -- the first attempt to have the situation remedied is under this plan. If the council finds it is not the fault of the builder, that he carried out his obligation under this bill and

part IX of the Act, but that the municipality was lax and that the drainage was improperly constructed, then obviously there is a very clear-cut case against the municipality.

What you are suggesting by this -- and this is the concern I have -- is that you would make the warranty plan cover not only what the builder does but what the municipality fails to do. The municipality is charged with the obligation of making sure there is proper drainage. Far too many of them, up until this time, have regarded that duty as having their engineer check the plans and that every bulldozer operator, every earthmover or every sewer company somehow always does things correctly.

I agree with you that the average homeowner doesn’t know why the water is in there or how the water got beside the house; all they know is that it’s there. Now there are going to be people who tell them why it is there; and, first of all, if the builder had not carried out his obligations under this Act, then it will be remedied then and there. It’s a clear-cut responsibility. If he has carried them out but the municipality has failed to do so, there is a clear-cut action against the municipality.

In view of the fact that the municipalities now have performance bonds, holdbacks and a great number of other resources to remedy this, quite frankly I think that will be asking far more of the new homeowners than I would be really prepared to go. You’re asking them to buy additional costly insurance against the negligence of the municipality -- not against the negligence of the builder and not against the negligence of the inspector. Furthermore, you’re asking an inspector under this Act to certify the accuracy of the performance of a municipality when he has no control over the municipality.

That’s where it seems to me it breaks down.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I’m not exactly asking that. First of all, I want to make it clear to you my only concern is that when a person purchases a home, that home will be as free from defect as is humanly possible. I’m not terribly eager to have the builder come back and fix things. I’m hoping that the end result of the legislation will be that there will be better-quality homes built in the Province of Ontario. That may be an odd way to put it, but I’m not interested in having builders rushing back and correcting problems; I’m interested in having the thing done properly in the first place.

I wanted to include drainage in the overall final inspection for two reasons. One is, with that provision in the Act, it is more likely that the builder will pay particular attention to that aspect of what has been a major problem. The second is that if the inspection is then made and it is found that the drainage is inadequate in whatever way -- I’m not talking about inadequate in the inspector’s opinion but rather that the overall plan has not been properly followed -- that can easily be corrected before the other problems are brought about.

One final point on that. If the inspector inspects and says, “You are going to have a drainage problem because of the municipality,” I assume, I hope correctly, that the inspector will be prepared to appear as an expert witness in whatever course of action may have to be undertaken thereafter by the individual homeowner. The only way to ensure that that person can appear as an expert witness is to have him involved originally in the inspection. That’s the only way to get him there.

Mr. Drea: But they are.

Mr. Deans: Not in that inspection, they are not. They are inspecting the home but not the property itself.

Mr. Drea: Sure he is.

Mr. Deans: No, he is not. Under

section 9 he is not, because you have already said he doesn’t have to concern himself with the inspection of the drainage patterns because it then falls within the jurisdiction of someone else. If

section 9 -- am I correct? It is

section 9?

Mr. Drea:

Part IX.

Mr. Deans:

Part IX. If

part IX is fully operative and put into force by this Act, we don’t have to worry because the inspector should obviously be inspecting it in any event.

Mr. Drea: Excuse me. We are talking about the Ontario Building Code and

part IX is already operative. Now you have raised the point that you want something in it -- simple, blunt and direct -- concerning drainage. There is nothing more simple, more blunt or more direct than saying that dwellings must be built according to the Ontario Building Code.

Granted that building code only concerns the drainage in proximity to the dwelling being built but if you were building 10 houses in a row the inspector is going to be in all 10 of them. It’s all right to say if it is a vacant lot and there are houses around it, he will be doing one.

If it is a subdivision -- and this is where the drainage problems come in; you very seldom get them with a vacant lot -- that inspector or his colleagues are going to be involved with all the dwellings in that subdivision. They are going to be specifically concerned about the adequacy of the master or developmental drainage because if that master or developmental drainage hasn’t been done properly, the individual builder is going to have to take extraordinary steps to make sure that the drainage in proximity to the dwelling is sufficient so there isn’t a problem for the homeowner.

I’m not suggesting that the inspector under this Act should close his eyes to what the municipality does. Of course, he will be an expert witness against the municipality if the municipality has failed to carry out its obligations. I think that’s of great benefit to the homeowner because until now it has been very difficult to find the resources to hire a consulting engineer or to find one with time available to go into one of these proceedings.

As I said before, the first step for the homeowner if something goes wrong -- I am with you; I don’t want the builder coming back; it’s to be built properly in the first place -- the first decision that has to be made is on the failure of the drainage. Is it the fault of the builder? If it is the fault of the builder that’s immediately rectified. That’s the end of that.

If it is the fault not of the builder but of someone else, you already have an expert witness in the inspector or the people who come from the warranty council. They have said it is not the fault of the builder of house A or of house B; it is the fact that the drainage plan as registered with the municipality was not carried out. It is the municipality’s responsibility. I think that’s a very clear-cut way of doing it.

[12:00]

Mr. Deans: It would be clear-cut if there were a requirement on the part of the inspector, (

a) to inspect, and there isn’t at the moment; and (

b) to appear on behalf of the homeowner in the event it turned out that it was the responsibility of a party other than the builder, for whom the home warranty plan is a protection if you will.

At the moment, under the law as you’re proposing it, there is no requirement on the inspector to inspect that matter. He can come, he can look at a problem if brought to his attention. If the inspector looks at that problem and says that it is not the responsibility of the builder because the builder complied with the existing laws and regulations and approved plans, that’s the end of the inspector’s responsibility. It ends right there, the inspector has no obligation to go further.

Mr. Drea: No, that is not true.

Mr. Deans: It’s true. The inspector has no obligation to go beyond that point, nor can the inspector be required to go beyond that point. If the inspector comes in and looks at a basement with six inches of water in it and says to the home purchaser, “I regret that you have six inches of water in your basement, but I have reviewed the plan and the builder has built according to the plan. I have reviewed the structure, and the structure is in no way defective.

I have reviewed the drainage pattern as approved by the municipality, and it appears that the builder has built according to the drainage pattern approved by the municipality,” then that inspector and that builder is no longer involved in the case.

Mr. Drea: It is not true.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but it is true.

Mr. Drea: They can review it. They’ve got a few more steps to go.

Mr. Deans: But the appeal can only be within the ambit of the law.

Mr. Drea: But the ambit of the law, in all fairness, is that the dwelling has to be built under the Ontario Building Code. All right? What you’re saying is that the inspector says the home was built within the provisions of the Ontario Building Code. You disagree. After the inspector, you can ask for mediation from the council. If you’re not satisfied with that, you have the right to appeal to CRAT. You’re saying that the inspector isn’t required to go any further. The inspector has to justify his decision to, first of all, the council, and then, secondly, to CRAT.

At that point, surely an inspector who has worked hard enough on the project -- and it is not the builder’s fault, it is that of the municipality -- when CRAT comes down with its decision its decision may be, in the first instance, or one half of it may be, that the builder and the planner are not responsible, but the second half is that the municipality is. I don’t know where you could get a clearer case of action against the municipality. It’s a simple procedure.

Mr. Deans: No one is denying that.

Mr. Drea: Just one other thing; you’re saying the inspector isn’t going to certify anything about drainage on his final remarks. By virtue of the fact that he has approved the house for possession, that it has been completed, and it now bears the start of the warranty, he has certified that the drainage and everything else that’s within the scope of the Ontario Building Code has been completed properly, that the drainage on the entire plot of land has been completed, if it is not satisfactory you have immediate cause for redress under the warranty programme.

Mr. Deans: Then I need a clear answer on the record. If you’re saying to me that the inspector having once given his approval, has certified that every single aspect of the Building Code, including drainage, has been complied with, then I assume that the warranty programme is, therefore, responsible for any error on the part of the inspector.

If, as a result of that, it turns out the approved drainage plan has nothing at all to do with what the inspector sees, if the municipality approves a drainage plan which turns out to be wrong, that doesn’t matter, because the inspector has approved what the Ontario Building Code says and not what the plan of drainage has said. You have to decide, because one must take precedence over the other.

Now the Building Code probably says in

part IX that the matter of drainage shall be attended to in a manner which will allow the property to drain properly without causing any difficulty to the home. Let’s say the builder or the developer files with the municipality a plan for a system which, when in actual operation does not provide adequate drainage, if you are telling me that this bill, by virtue of reference to the Building Code, takes precedence over the plan filed with the municipality, then I accept it. I accept it and I agree with you that the recourse is clear and we have no difficulty.

But if you are telling me that over here some place the approval given by the municipality will be taken into consideration, then I say to you there is no requirement on the part of the inspector to appear as a witness at all.

Mr. Drea: Well to answer you, and just to make it absolutely clear, of course there is precedence. The municipality must approve the drainage before any construction can start. It can’t issue a permit without it.

Mr. Deans: But it’s possible to approve something not in compliance with the building code -- right?

Mr. Drea: No, they cannot.

Mr. Deans: But it is possible they could have approved something not in compliance with the building code.

Mr. Drea: Well then the municipality is liable for that.

Mr. Deans: But the inspector represents --

Mr. Drea: No. Let’s start from the beginning. We are talking about two different things. First of all, the developmental drainage is a responsibility of the municipality, nothing can start until that is approved by the municipality.

Mr. Deans: So suppose they make a mistake.

Mr. Drea: Pardon?

Mr. Deans: I said suppose they made a mistake?

Mr. Drea: All right.

Mr. Deans: As they frequently do

Mr. Drea: All right. You are saying that the plan doesn’t do it. The plan always does it; it is the way the plan is carried out that fails. All right; the municipality is liable for that. And I am telling you that in a subdivision, under this Act, even where there is no authority by the municipality, that situation will be detected very early on in the proceedings.

Mr. Deans: By whom?

Mr. Drea: By the inspector, because the inspector has to look at the drainage around the individual lot. If he finds something the matter with the drainage, he checks to see if the drainage is in accordance with

part IX of the Ontario Building Code. If he finds it is, then obviously something is the matter further back. These inspections aren’t done just when the house is completed; there are a number of inspections almost from the start of the excavation.

If the fault lies further back with the municipality and with the municipal drainage inspector or drainage engineer, then very early on liability for that is going to be assigned to the municipality. But more important than that, the work on the individual units is going to stop until the municipality, or whoever did it, corrects that situation. Now at the present --

Mr. Deans: Where does it say that in this bill?

Mr. Drea: Look, the inspector has the obligation to get the houses built as perfectly as possible so there are no claims on the fund -- that is his obligation. He is not going to let work continue if he knows the overall drainage is going to lead to very substantial problems.

Mr. Deans: But he can’t tell until final grading.

Mr. Drea: That may be very true in the case of the individual house, but he certainly is in a position to notice or to observe that very early on in construction there appear to be substantial problems with the drainage. And having looked, inspected and found the drainage fault is not with the way the houses are being built or the drains are being put in around them, then obviously something is the matter with the overall drainage. At that point, he’s not going to let the construction go on.

Mr. Deans: Let me just make one final point. I won’t take up more time other than to tell you this. If that home is built, if the overall development starts in the summer, you will find it is extremely difficult to determine the actual drainage patterns of the area. It happened on Hamilton Mountain just recently under a home ownership programme that a house was built where a virtual river -- a stream, I guess, is a better term -- runs down the driveway. It is 3 ft deep at the driveway. It’s about 7 ft deep at the end of the lot. I fell into the thing trying to find it one day in the snow.

I want to tell you that if you were to go there now or a month from now, you wouldn’t know it existed because it is the drainage for the entire drainage area. One inspector going in looking at the properties in the summer would never know it was there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it was going to be a problem until some time in the spring. He couldn’t then have taken the corrective action. The difficulty with all of this is that it backs up. When you start trying to repair it, to fix it, you’re then going through any number of properties all the way back up to the source of the problem.

That inspector will not have inspected all of those properties nor will he have the authority to inspect them because many of them are not within the overall development and therefore it is hard to pinpoint the responsibility.

Anyhow, I’m going to tell you, as obviously we’re not on the same wavelength on it, that you’ll find one of your biggest difficulties will be the one we have just discussed. Unless the inspector has the final authority, the overall approval, which includes drainage, and makes sure that the final inspection takes that into account, I say to you you’re going to be faced with serious difficulty. I leave it at that.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is only one thing I wanted to raise in the debate. I felt the comments made by the parliamentary assistant were accurate, particularly when he said that when the certificate is approved really what is happening is that the inspector is approving some things over which the builder does not have particular knowledge or control. However, the builder becomes the conduit through which the other approvals can all be related to that house and therefore that flows throughout the piece.

If there are particular difficulties in other areas, it was my understanding that the certificate would have that effect of completing that chain. I thought that was the burden of the remarks made by the member for Scarborough Centre and I agree with him. That was all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Makarchuk: I want to mention a few comments. I think in this case that the parliamentary assistant is making a very serious mistake in denying this particular amendment. He is a man of the world. He certainly is not a naive person; he has been involved in these situations and he knows what goes on.

I think there are two major problems you should consider. In the first place, when the homeowner gets into the home, it is too late at that time to come to grips with a drainage problem. You cannot move out; you have to go and chase everybody all over the place and so on. This is one item that has to be considered.

The other item is the fact that there are very many ways in Ontario to get approval of a subdivision. Even though the plan of subdivision may initially appear to provide for adequate drainage, there is a possibility in the construction of that subdivision that the watercourses can be changed. They can be blocked partially or fully blocked. In this case, although initially there was no drainage problem, when the buildings are on the site drainage problems develop and become very serious.

The point once again is, it may affect one or two homes. The owners of the new residences at this time are unable to get back at the municipality. There is no hold-back. The municipality will probably find that the problem is caused by drainage somewhere further upstream or new development further upstream that is causing the problems in a downstream subdivision. You cannot get back at the municipality.

[12:15]

I will give you a situation that exists along Paris Rd. in Brantford which involves a CNR culvert, which involves a major highway and which involves a lot of things. It affects two homes which should not have been built there in the first place, and the homeowners have really no recourse -- they have nowhere to go. They are stuck with their homes, they are locked into a mortgage, and they have a backyard that’s swamp at the best of times and a danger to the children in the worst of times. It fills up during a storm to about 9 or 10 ft of water, and there is a possibility of children drowning.

Once again, in this situation, there is nowhere they could go to try to resolve this problem. It seems to me that by eliminating this amendment, nebulous as it may seem perhaps, you are in effect not giving as much protection to the prospective owner as you could ordinarily.

Mr. Hall: In connection with the problems of responsibility in different areas, I would like to point out that to the best of my knowledge subdivision agreement requires the subdivider to place a performance bond or some other surety method relative to the proper execution and completion of all the works that are set out in the subdivision document. This, of course, includes site elevations on each lot. Moreover, there is a maintenance period after the completion of all the works at which time the municipality still holds the surety from the developer.

I submit to you that the nature of the problems that the amenders of the bill are suggesting would, in the normal course of events, be very well taken care of by a complaint to the municipality. Such a complaint would ensure that, to the extent there is a deficiency on grading or poor water drainage, the subdivider has an obligation under the terms of the subdivider’s agreement, aside from

part IX of the building code and aside from the other standards that go on. So it still seems to me to be redundant.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): The “nays” have it, sorry.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute, your opinion was right the first time. We will stack.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): We will stack it?

Mr. Deans: You guys should listen.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we agreed with another chairman that we would deal with

section 13 subsection by subsection. I would like to move an amendment

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): Mr. Renwick moves that

section 13 of Bill 94 be amended by inserting after subsection 1 the following subsection 2:

(2) The owner may elect to treat a major structural defect as defined by the regulations as a condition of the contract for the sale of the home to the owner or for the construction of the home for the owner and not as a warranty, and if the owner so elects, the owner may reject the home and treat the contract as repudiated.

and renumber the subsequent subsections accordingly.

Mr. Drea: Do you have a copy?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I regret that that is my last copy. I had innumerable copies of these various amendments. I distributed them all and I gave a copy to the minister. I gave a copy to my colleagues in the Liberal Party but, unfortunately, I have no further copy of that amendment.

Mr. Drea: Not that one, the other one.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, that’s the one.

Mr. Drea: I haven’t got it.

Mr. Renwick: You have it?

Mr. Drea: I have not.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps you could have a look at that. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant, in due course, would send one back to the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, and extremely briefly because I dealt with this at some point on second reading, we are dealing only with major structural defects in this proposed amendment. And it is a clear statement that in the event of a major structural defect as defined in the regulation that, in those circumstances, rather than treat the matter as a warranty, the owner, that is, the purchaser of the home either from the vendor, from the previous owner or the builder, may treat it as a condition of the contract and, on that basis, repudiate the contract and not take the home. It’s just that simple.

The reason for it is that we do, and have, for many, many years, indeed, going back into the last century, provided that identical situation in the sale of goods. Our fundamental principle throughout the debate in this assembly has been very simple: If you’re talking about the major investment made by most citizens in the Province of Ontario over the course of their lifetime, that person should not be required to take a home necessarily which has a major structural defect as defined by the ministry.

He should be able to elect, if he cares to do so, not to treat it as a warranty but to treat it as a condition and to say: “I repudiate the contract and I don’t want the house. You take it back.” I emphasize, it’s related solely to major structural defects.

Mr. Deans: And an excellent amendment.

Mr. Renwick: The amendment is the reverse of the situation which is set out in the Sale of Goods Act but has the same purpose. The Sale of Goods Act says:

“Where a contract of sale is subject to a condition to be fulfilled by the seller, the buyer may waive the condition or may elect to treat the breach of the condition as a breach of warranty and not as the grounds for treating the contract as repudiated.”

In the case of a sale of goods, if there is a condition in the contract, the buyer of the goods may treat the condition as a warranty and not repudiate the contract but take it as a claim for damages.

What we have said is that in the case of major structural defects, he may say: “I do not accept this as a warranty. I elect to treat it as a condition and have the right to repudiate the contract and to turn the house back.”

The reason we say that is that if one looks at the definition of warranty, wherever it’s used, then one usually finds that it is a term collateral to the main purpose of the contract and it’s that breach which gives rise to the right to damages but not to the right to reject the item of the contract and treat the contract as repudiated.

It does seem to us, that in the case of major structural defects, you have to give the owner that particular right of election. In that case we think this bill would be immeasurably strengthened if the ministry could see fit to accept that amendment.

Mr. Hall: I will speak briefly on it. Do you want to respond first?

Mr. Drea: I would like to respond now, Mr. Chairman.

I am not going to accept that amendment. First of all, it takes me back about a year and a half because here we are on the same thing about rescission involving real property as we were in committee on Bill 55, the Business Practices Act. You will recall, while it dealt with used homes, it didn’t deal with new ones. At that time one of the problems was the time limit, the time span, the impact all along the line on the purchase and sale of real property. Very seldom is there an isolated case; it is always contingent upon something else happening.

On this particular one, before we get to the real impact of rescission, one of the things that interests me is, with the price of houses climbing, after three or four years what does the person get? Do they get what they paid for the house? How do they get their interest back? When you buy a house in the first three or four years you may very well put down only $3,000 or $4,000. Your interest really is about 99 per cent of your monthly payment. You accumulate very little equity. To me, it would be extremely difficult to arrive at a fair method of reimbursing, in terms of dollars, a home buyer who was unfortunate enough to be in a situation in which a major structural defect had occurred.

When you are talking about general warranty law you are talking about the defect being a condition because under general warranty law there is no obligation on someone to remove or correct that substantial defect. In this legislation there is an obligation; you’ve already paid for it.

Furthermore, as part of this programme, which is not part of any general warranty programme, there is inspection all the way along the line until the completion or the production of the product. In terms of the Sale of Goods Act there is no inspection under your control or by which you participate as a purchaser in the production of the goods or chattels.

In this particular case, if there is a structural defect, in practical terms of the housing market, in terms of the least inconvenience to and the most desirable results for the afflicted party it will be repaired, even if the repair costs $100,000 or $200,000. It brings the property back up to standard and that, surely, is much more desirable.

I would suggest to you while this amendment certainly isn’t clear as to the compensation or the damages which might be possible after rescission there is no court, at least none that I know of as a layman, which would say that because you bought something in 1976 at a value of X dollars which turned out to be faulty and now, in 1980 or 1981, it costs $X plus $500 you have to be compensated for the $500 because you are now going out and starting all over again.

[12:30]

You would be into immeasurable difficulties about taking back. When you are considering the amount of the interest payment, that may b