Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills — Issue No. 4

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Present: John Martin, MLA (Chair); Leonard Eugene Krog, MLA (Deputy Chair); Harry Bains, MLA; Dr. Doug Bing, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Vicki Huntington, MLA; Don McRae, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA

1. There not yet being a Chair elected to serve the Committee, the meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by the Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.

2. Resolved, that John Martin, MLA, be elected Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. (Leonard Krog, MLA)

3. Resolved, that Leonard Krog, MLA, be elected Deputy Chair of Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. (Eric Foster, MLA)

4. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions regarding Private Bill Pr 401, Millar College of the Bible Act:

5. Resolved, that the Committee report that the preamble of Bill Pr 401, intituled Millar College of the Bible Act has been proved and that the Committee recommend that the Bill proceed to Second Reading (Don McRae, MLA)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS


CONTENTS
Page
Election of Chair and Deputy Chair	23
Bill Pr401 — Millar College of the Bible Act	23
K. Boonstra
P. Ruten
S. Janz
G. Kyllo
D. Rogers

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Good afternoon, members of the committee. As this is the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform for the current session of this parliament and there has not yet been an election to the position of Chair, the first item of business is nominations to that position.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Martin, would you accept the nomination?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Thank you. That’s good news. I will now put the question.

The first order of business is we’re going to elect a Deputy Chair to this committee. Do we have any nominations?

J. Martin (Chair): Any other nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

Welcome. We’ve got a number of guests here. On the line, we have Kevin Boonstra, the solicitor and parliamentary agent acting on behalf of Millar College of the Bible. We have Phil Ruten, the president of the college, and Steve Janz, director of the B.C. college.

Also in the room today, we have Dorothy Rogers from the Ministry of Advanced Education — welcome, Dorothy — and my colleague Greg Kyllo, the MLA for Shuswap. Welcome, Greg.

Perhaps we can ask the Clerk to give us a little bit of an overview of what we’re going to be tackling this afternoon.

The members of this committee who have served previously will know that one of the regular items of business that comes to this forum is review of private bills. Private bills are bills without the broad application of a public bill, which of course most government bills are, in the Legislative Assembly. They have a broad application to the province as a whole.

From time to time, the Legislature will receive an application on behalf of a society or other group to have a private bill introduced and considered by the Legislative Assembly. Part of that usual process includes a number of administrative provisions, which are outlined in the Standing Orders, under tab 7 in your binders.

In that light, you will have had a chance to review some of the steps that are required with respect to the application. My colleague Loredana has also assisted with this particular application and can speak to some details within it.

As the Chair mentioned, we’re also fortunate to have with us today, on the line, a solicitor, Mr. Boonstra, who can speak to the objectives of the application of the private bill. As well, Mr. Kyllo, who introduced the bill into the Legislature at first reading stage approximately a week ago, is prepared to move it forward into its final consideration by the Legislature, following the review and approval, in essence, of the preamble of the bill here in this committee room.

Ms. Rogers, from the Ministry of Advanced Education, has kindly agreed to be present here today, should you have any technical inquiries, technical questions with respect to the Ministry of Advanced Education’s perspective on the proposed legislation.

With that, perhaps I’ll ask Loredana to address one aspect of the application process for the information of the committee.

L. Catalli-Sonier (Sessional Law Clerk): This application was filed on February 22. As required, the Law Clerk forwarded a copy to legislative counsel. That’s to ensure that any areas of public concerns are addressed within the bill before it’s allowed to come forward for introduction in the Legislature.

The application was filed within the deadline. The advertising, as prescribed by the standing orders, was complied
[ Page 24 ]
with, with one small exception — that at least one of the notices should have been published at the time of filing the application on February 22. However, our office advised the applicant, the petitioner, to immediately file, knowing that that first notice had not been published, to meet the deadline. Soon after, the first publication took place.

Really, the requirements of the standing orders have been satisfied, with that one exception. The reason that those advertising requirements are there is to ensure that anyone who is interested in the application or possibly affected by the private bill has an opportunity to advise the Legislature that they wish to appear before the committee. The first advertising occurred on March 10, so there’s been ample time for the public to become notified that this application was coming forward. Our office has received no expression of interest, and there has been no opposition expressed.

The bill…. We were advised on April 25 that all the changes that were required in the initial draft, which was filed on February 22, had been made, and the bill that has come forward has addressed the concerns, particularly, of the Ministry of Advanced Education. But others can speak to it. Certainly, Mr. Boonstra may wish to speak to that.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): Just one very specific question. I take it the failure to comply in absolute and complete terms with the rules does not bar the progress of this bill. In other words, it’s an issue that we can simply waive as a committee.

L. Catalli-Sonier (Sessional Law Clerk): Yes, that is correct. In looking back at a number of other private bill applications, there were more serious transgressions or failure to comply with the requirements, and despite that fact, the committee recommended that the bill go forward for second reading.

The spirit and intent of the requirement, in my opinion, has been met, and this is just one small wrinkle. Because of the passage of time, there’s been ample opportunity for the public to contact our office if there was a concern.

J. Martin (Chair): Kevin Boonstra, the solicitor, or parliamentary agent, acting on behalf of the college: would you care to say a few words?

First of all, by way of background — and this is referred to in the recitals to the bill — Millar College was originally incorporated as the Millar Memorial Bible Institute in Saskatchewan in 1944, so it’s been around for a very long time. There was a name change by the Saskatchewan Legislature in 1990, so that’s why it’s now known as the Millar College of the Bible.

Millar College provides strictly theological training and degrees. It is a Bible college. It is now extraprovincially registered in British Columbia, under the provisions of the Society Act. I attended to that, in concert with bringing the bill forward, just so that it would have proper recognition within British Columbia as a Saskatchewan entity.

Millar College operates primarily out of Saskatchewan but also now operates a campus just outside of Salmon Arm. It provides, as I say, Bible college training. The Ministry of Advanced Education doesn’t directly regulate theological degrees under the Degree Authorization Act, so this act ensures that Millar College of the Bible has appropriate authorization to provide theological degrees, and only theological degrees, within British Columbia.

The bill is limited to associate and baccalaureate degrees. It does not cover master’s or doctorate degrees. So the authority that’s given to it under this legislation will be so that it can issue degrees in theology at the associate or baccalaureate level.

As was mentioned earlier, we believe we’ve met all of the concerns that the Ministry of Advanced Education had, with respect to prior drafts of the bill, and that this bill now has no ministerial objection to it.

I’m happy to answer any questions that any of the committee members may have. As has been noted, the president, Mr. Ruten, is also on the phone, as is Mr. Janz, the director of the B.C. campus of Millar College. If there are questions about the operations of the college, they would probably be in the best position to answer those.

I would just note — many on the committee probably are aware of this — that most, if not all, other Bible colleges and seminaries in British Columbia have a similar type of legislation that grants them the ability to grant degrees in theology.

P. Ruten: No. I think Kevin has presented it as we would like it to be presented. I don’t have anything to add to what he said.

S. Janz: Yeah, I would just say the same as our president here, Phil. We’re just happy that you’re taking it under consideration.

J. Martin (Chair): The proponent who brought this forward — Greg Kyllo, MLA: anything to add?

G. Kyllo: I guess I’d just say that I thank the committee for taking the time to give consideration to this bill. I’ve had good reports from the work that they’re doing in the Shuswap.

This will be the only theological college operating in the interior of the province. As far as geographic distribu-
[ Page 25 ]
tion, there are a number at UBC campus — I believe five; three at Trinity Western; about four in the Fraser Valley. This will be the only theological college operating in the interior of the province.

J. Martin (Chair): From the Ministry of Advanced Education, Dorothy Rogers is here. Is there anything that we should know?

D. Rogers: Certainly, we have been working with the proponents, and any concerns were addressed in the legislation.

H. Bains: Just a question, maybe, for the ministry, as it’s mentioned here that there are a number of other Bible colleges in British Columbia. How did they come into existence? Did they go through the same system that we are using today, or was there any other system that was used to give them the authorization to operate?

D. Rogers: All the private theological institutions do have private acts. They went through the private act process and have the authority to grant theological degrees here in B.C. So it’s a very similar process, yes.

H. Bains: My question was: did they go through this process that we are dealing with today, or was that done in the big House in some legislation? Or was it that they all went through the same system that we are using right here today for Millar College?

D. Rogers: Well, I think that’s an answer for the Clerk, but I believe they do go through the same process.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, to the best of my knowledge, this has been the typical practice for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for at least the last 20 years or so. I don’t know how far back beyond that did different variations in the processes that may have been in place for the earlier private institutions. Certainly, in the last 15, 20 years, this has been a regular practice to receive bills of this kind for Bible institutes and colleges.

H. Bains: Just another one that both of you, perhaps, can answer. Could this have been dealt with in the main chambers through legislation, or is this the only means of granting certification to this type of college in British Columbia?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): For a private bill, in fact, the process does originate in the Legislative Assembly, and it will conclude there. Following the deliberations of this committee…. You will recall, as I mentioned earlier, that Mr. Kyllo introduced a bill at first reading stage about a week ago.

Once the deliberations of this committee have concluded and should you recommend that the bill continue its progress in the Legislative Assembly, it will return at second reading stage in the House. There it will be available for debate and consideration by all members and then continue through the usual legislative process — second reading, committee stage debate, third reading.

It would come into effect, typically, on the day of royal assent. That’s the usual model.

H. Bains: So I guess just as a matter of clarification. Normally the bills are introduced in the House. The government brings it for the second read. None of them come through this system. So my question: why is this going through this system rather than government moving into the second stage of committee in the main chambers?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, certainly, as I mentioned earlier, most of the other bills that are introduced by government with broad application throughout the province are introduced in the chamber, debated and either amended or adopted by the Legislature as a whole. That’s also true for public bills in the hands of a private member. A member’s bill, for example, goes through that same process.

Our standing orders, which are available at tab 7 in the binder, outline a unique process for private bills. It does involve consideration by this committee. One of the benefits of that process is, of course, that we would have an opportunity to hear directly from the applicants or their parliamentary agent, solicitors who have been appointed under the standing orders to represent them.

It provides a public forum for which the members can have questions directly with the applicant or even call additional witnesses, if required. So there is some flexibility by having the committee’s presence within the usual legislative process.

L. Catalli-Sonier (Sessional Law Clerk): I could add that the distinction is public bills — government bills or bills in the hands of private members — are of general application and apply to everyone. They’re introduced as a matter of public policy of the government of the day or, in the case of private members…. Whereas private bills concern outside groups — individuals, municipalities, churches.

What they are doing is they are initiating the application, and they are seeking special powers. In this case, it would be the power to grant these degrees. They can’t get those powers anywhere else except by act of the Legislature. But because any private bill that comes forward can affect citizens, there is the requirement of ad-
[ Page 26 ]
vertising so that the public is made aware that there’s a group seeking these special powers.

The other point that I made earlier is that the legislation, when it arrives in draft form…. We are required to send it to government through the office of the legislative counsel. There could very well be issues of public concern that have to be addressed before government will sign off and let it go forward, because it can affect another group.

That is really the distinction. It’s who initiates it, and there’s a very unique process to go through. But at the end, the members will have an opportunity, when it does come back to the House, to ask questions or debate it.

V. Huntington: Just a couple of questions, one following up on Leonard’s earlier comment. I noticed Standing Order 98 is not permissive. It says that the notice must be published at the time of filing the application. Do I understand, then, that standing orders are not law, so to speak — that they’re more malleable in terms of how an issue like this is dealt with and that the spirit and intent, as the Clerk says, has been followed in this case?

L. Catalli-Sonier (Sessional Law Clerk): I think that the expectation is that all requirements for an application for a private bill will be met, but there were circumstances here where our office advised the immediate filing of the application, knowing that one of the notices had not appeared, as required by subsection (2) of Standing Order 98.

The committee can waive this requirement. It can order what it deems advisable in the situation. There had been defects in the past, where the advertising was incomplete and even deadlines had not been respected. So the committee weighed the application and decided that it was appropriate in that circumstance to waive that requirement. Because you look at…. Everything else has been met, and it’s just one minor area.

What is behind the requirement to advertise is to notify the public. Am I affected by this bill? Do I have ample time to advise the Legislature that I wish to speak? I think that’s what the committee could weigh in waiving that requirement if it chooses to recommend that the bill go forward — that despite that minor discrepancy, the spirit and intent of the advertising requirements had, in fact, been met.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I would concur with Lori’s opinion on this. She has examined some previous examples, as she mentioned. In particular, Vicki, for your information, it’s Standing Order 104(2) which provides a committee with the ability to waive any requirements related to the application, if it so desires.

V. Huntington: Yes, I do. This is where, perhaps, the proponents or the applicants can advise me. Am I right that the college has been in operation since 2012? Is that right?

V. Huntington: Am I correct in that the college has been operating since 2012 in British Columbia?

K. Boonstra: I’m going to defer answering the date to Mr. Ruten. I believe that’s true, subject to his confirmation, but it has not been granting degrees within British Columbia since then.

V. Huntington: Okay. Did you just suddenly realize you didn’t have the act in place and have a class ready to graduate? Is this part of the…?

K. Boonstra: I don’t think it’s a matter of suddenly realizing it. I think it’s just a matter of making sure that they’re respecting the requirements of British Columbia and making sure that there’s no objection to them doing so.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): A preliminary question for the Clerk and the Law Clerk. I’m going to presume that when this matter comes back to the House for committee stage of the bill, the member for Shuswap won’t be surrounded by a guard of ministerial assistants and staff to assist him in answering questions. So if we’re to ask questions that might be pertinent or relevant, this would be the appropriate forum in which to do it. Is that fair comment?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, I would agree. This is the best forum for questions. We have access to many more resources in this venue.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Hearing that, then, Mr. Chair, to Dorothy Rogers: I take it that there was a draft of this bill sent to the ministry. The ministry has reviewed it. There have been changes made.

My reading of the bill, in conjunction with what Mr. Boonstra said, is that it will only be able to grant a bachelor’s degree, because the definition of degree refers only…. It’s “specified in writing to be an associate or baccalaureate degree.”

In contrast to the University of British Columbia, which has a school of theology, are those degrees granted pursuant to the University Act, I take it, then, as opposed to a private bill?

D. Rogers: No. They have a private bill. The theological colleges and seminaries on the campus of UBC are affiliated with UBC, and the University Act does allow for af-
[ Page 27 ]
filiation. But they must grant the degree under their own name, and they all have private acts that allow them to grant degrees in their own name.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): When was the last private act relating to a private college of this nature passed by the Legislature? Can you tell me?

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): The reason I ask is I’m simply unfamiliar with the process.

I take it that the only way one gets to grant a degree in theology in British Columbia is pursuant to a private act. Is that fair comment?

D. Rogers: That’s correct. The University Act has a general prohibition on the granting of degrees. There is the Degree Authorization Act, which provides a route for private institutions to grant degrees, but degrees in theology are exempted under that act. For institutions that wish to offer degrees and grant degrees in theology, this is the only route in order for them to do that.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): Assuming that this bill passes and the college then has the authority to grant those degrees, what regulatory regime, if any, are they subject to?

D. Rogers: They are not subject to oversight by government, in terms of the institution itself. There is a policy review that institutions go through, should they wish to enrol international students on study permits.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I mean no disrespect. This is an intellectual question. This is not in reference to this particular bill before us today.

I take it, then, that there is no provincial responsibility or liability that would arise from this. The reason I raise this is that, as we know, there were some institutions taking international students, for instance, that didn’t seem to do very well and left their students high and dry. That’s the reason for asking this question.

There will be no liability attached to the province, should, for instance, this institution fold for some reason, not be able to refund its tuition — a problem of that nature. Is that a fair comment?

D. Rogers: Should the institution wish to enrol international students, there is a review process that the institution will go forward with to ensure that the institution has the capacity to enrol international students and that they have processes in place to protect tuition.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I guess what I’m getting at is: if it’s just policy, what enforcement mechanisms are there, if any, to prevent an institution of this nature from enrolling international students?

D. Rogers: The federal government changed their regulations in 2014 with regard to the international student program. They will not provide study permits to institutions unless they are validated by the province, and the province provides the list to the federal government.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): With respect to those students who are Canadian, is there any legal liability imposed on the province, again, in the horrible scenario where students pay their tuition, the institution folds, etc.? In other words, is there any public liability that will fall to the province or the taxpayers of British Columbia?

D. Rogers: In terms of theological institutions, the ministry has no role with regard to theological institutions.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): So it’s fair to say that if I was dissatisfied and hadn’t received my degree or couldn’t get my tuition back or whatever, it’s simply a private civil matter between myself as a student and the institution itself.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): Thank you. That was very interesting. I wanted to have a little educational experience today, so for what it’s worth, I’m quite satisfied. I can wish the Millar College of the Bible success, assuming that they make it through the process.

G. Holman: Again, to Ms. Rogers, does the ministry do any kind of due diligence around the history of the college? It’s been in place for a number of years in Saskatchewan, just a few years in British Columbia, although it’s not issuing degrees. What kind of due diligence does the ministry do in terms of determining whether it’s in good standing or it’s fulfilling its obligations appropriately? Do you do any of that?
[ Page 28 ]

D. Rogers: There is some due diligence that has occurred. We looked at their bylaws as well as their governance structure. We made inquiries with the ministry in Saskatchewan. We ensured that they were a society in good standing. We looked to see about their history in Saskatchewan. In terms of the act, we looked at it from that public policy perspective.

G. Holman: So would you be aware if anyone had lodged a complaint? As a result of the work that you did, would you be aware of that? If a former student or whatever….

D. Rogers: Again, theological institutions in western Canada do not usually have an oversight by government. Although we made inquiries with Saskatchewan, they do not have an oversight role in terms of theological institutions in Saskatchewan as well. So we could not verify whether there were complaints against the institution.

V. Huntington: Did the due diligence include determining whether there was general support within the evangelical community for Millar College — i.e., is the college serving the evangelical community, as it purports in the bill?

D. Rogers: No, that wouldn’t be part of the due diligence that we do, in terms of support within the community. So no.

G. Kyllo: Mr. Chair, if I could just add, at Millar College, they have been designated both for student financial aid as well as the international student program in Saskatchewan. I could only surmise that if there were concerns raised to the Saskatchewan government, they would have shared that with us when we called. But they indicated they had no concerns.

J. Martin (Chair): Perhaps our guests on the teleconference — anything to add to the question around concerns?

K. Boonstra: I’m sorry, but I’m having some difficulty hearing the question. I’m not exactly sure what the question was.

I move that the committee report that the preamble of Bill Pr401, intituled Millar College of the Bible Act, 2015, has been proved, and that the committee recommend that the bill proceed to second reading.

J. Martin (Chair): Thank you so much. Have a wonderful day, everybody. Thank you to our guests on the line.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

Chair:	John Martin (Chilliwack BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Leonard Eugene Krog (Nanaimo NDP)
Members:	Harry Bains (Surrey-Newton NDP)
	Dr. Doug Bing (Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows BC Liberal)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Gary Holman (Sanich North and the Islands NDP)
	Vicki Huntington (Delta South Ind.)
	Don McRae (Comox Valley BC Liberal)
	Sam Sullivan (Vancouver–False Creek BC Liberal)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
Clerks:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Loredana Catalli-Sonier

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS