The committee met at 8:08 a.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Good morning, everyone. As this is the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for the third session of the 42nd Parliament, it is my honour as Clerk of Committees to oversee the election of Chair.

Do we have any nominations for Chair of the committee?

G. Begg: I nominate Megan Dykeman.

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Megan, do you accept the nomination?

M. Dykeman: Yes.

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Any further nominations? Any further nominations? A third and last time, any further nominations?

The question is that Megan take the role as Chairperson of the committee.

Motion approved.

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Congratulations, Chair.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you.

It’s now my responsibility as Chair to oversee the election of Deputy Chair. Are there any nominations from the floor?

N. Letnick: I nominate Michael Lee, please.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Do you accept the nomination?

M. Lee: I do.

[8:10 a.m.]

M. Dykeman (Chair): Are there any other nominations? Any other nominations? A third and final time: are there any other nominations for Deputy Chair?

Seeing none, the question is that MLA Lee take the role of Deputy Chair.

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Congratulations, Deputy Chair.

Today the committee is considering Bill Pr401, the Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022.

We have a number of individuals joining us today, including MLA Jordan Sturdy, sponsor of the bill; representatives from Quest University, formerly known as Sea to Sky University; and officials from the Ministries of Advanced Education and Skills Training, Finance, and Municipal Affairs.

I will now turn it over to Suzie Seo, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, to provide us with an overview of the role of our committee as it relates to private bills.

Briefing from
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Members. I’m happy to provide a briefing on the role of the select standing committee in considering private bills.

Having been appointed in 1872 as the select standing committee on private bills and standing orders, this committee is one of the oldest continuously provided for in the Legislative Assembly. Since the beginning, the committee has had, as part of its mandate, the consideration of private bills.

Like public bills, private bills may amend an existing law or enact a new one. However, they differ from public bills in that private bills relate to a particular interest of a specific group or entity and affect only that specific group or entity and not the general population as a whole. A private bill may seek a remedy to a matter that is not possible under existing laws, or it might receive an application for an exemption from the general application of a statute that has general application.

Unlike a public bill that is a government bill or a public bill in the hands of a private member — more commonly known as a private member’s bill — which, once introduced, are deemed to be in the possession of the House, a private bill belongs to the applicant or petitioner. A private bill neither belongs to the House nor to the member sponsoring it.

In the early days of our Legislature, this committee considered private bills relating to the construction of the province’s infrastructure, including the establishment of railways, waterworks and theological schools, and the incorporation of private companies and municipalities. Private bills were also introduced to establish professional associations. More recently in British Columbia’s history, private bills have been introduced and enacted to establish or make amendments relating to religious bodies, faith-based entities, foundations, trusts and charitable organizations.

The volume of private bills referred to this committee has changed over the years. Until the 1960s, the committee dealt with up to 30 bills per session. Activity dropped, however, in the 1970s, as there were fewer applications for private bills due to legislative amendments and, in particular, developments relating to corporate laws and related administrative mechanisms. Among the changes was the repeal and replacement of the Company Act with the Business Corporations Act in 2004 and the enactment of the Societies Act in 2015.

Private bills are now relatively rare and account for a small part of the Legislative Assembly’s business. Since approximately 2014, activity has reduced even further. On average, the committee has considered one private bill per year. This committee last met in 2021, during the second session of the current parliament, to consider a private bill regarding the United Church of Canada.

Applications for private bills are submitted to the Office of the Clerk, where the components are reviewed by the Law Clerk, me, and verified against the requirements pro­vided for in the standing orders. However, in practice, both the sponsor of a private bill and applicant consult with the Law Clerk early in the process to ensure that the bill is presented in proper form and that the necessary procedural and administrative steps are followed as set out in the standing orders.

The Law Clerk is also required to provide the draft bill to the office of legislative counsel, which ensures that the draft bill is prepared in accordance with current legislative drafting standards or style.

Once the application for a private bill has been certified by the Law Clerk as having met all of the requirements of Standing Orders 97 and 98, the private bill is introduced and read a first time in the House. Then it is automatically referred to this committee. This is a unique process, specific to private bills, and the reason why the committee is meeting here today.

[8:15 a.m.]

One of the benefits of examining private bills in committee is the opportunity to hear directly from the applicant or their parliamentary agent, who has been certified under the standing orders to represent the applicant or petitioner. It also provides a public forum in which members can ask questions directly of the applicant, or even call additional witnesses if required.

As required by the standing orders, the purpose of today’s meeting is to determine if the preamble to the bill, which is a statement that establishes the context of the bill and explains its object and meaning, has been proven to the committee’s satisfaction.

The committee hears all individuals or organizations concerned and, following deliberations, reports to the Legislative Assembly on whether or not it is satisfied that the statements contained in the bill’s preamble are true, thus determining whether the bill will proceed. The committee may also make amendments to the bill or may report that the preamble was not proven and recommend that the bill not proceed.

Once the deliberations of this committee have concluded, and should the Chair report favourably to the House, the bill will then be placed on the orders of the day for second reading and be available for debate and consideration by all members as it proceeds through the remaining legislative stages, those being second reading, committee stage, report stage, third reading and ultimately royal assent.

Unless committee members have any questions, I would be pleased to now speak to the application and certification of the private bill that is before you, Bill Pr401, Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Do committee members have any questions at this stage, or shall Suzie proceed?

Seeing no questions.

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): Members, in order for the private bill application to be certified, certain requirements as outlined in the standing orders must be met. I can now report to this committee the following.

The application was received on February 17, 2022, meeting the February 22 deadline. The petition outlining the purpose of the bill was received. The notice or advertising requirements were satisfied, with ads placed in both the B.C. Gazette, the provincial newspaper; and the Squa­mish Chief newspaper. A statutory declaration stating the same has been received.

The fee of $500 has been paid and processed. The ap­pointment of a parliamentary agent, Dr. Jeff Warren, has been certified by the Clerk. The office of legislative counsel received and reviewed the draft bill, and it was printed by the Queen’s Printer. I certified the application for the bill to proceed, and it was introduced by the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and read a first time in the Legislative Assembly on April 5.

Notice of this meeting was made public, available both on the Legislative Assembly’s website and posted down the hallway in the Speaker’s Corridor.

I would be pleased to answer any questions members may have on what I have just stated. I understand also that pursuant to Standing Order 103, an amendment to the bill has been recommended by way of written submission. If the committee would find it helpful at this point, I would be pleased to also provide an overview of how the committee may consider making an amendment to the bill at this stage of the legislative process. Alternatively, I could speak to this at a later point in the proceedings, once the committee has had an opportunity to hear from witnesses.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you, Suzie.

Do committee members have any questions at this stage? Further, do committee members wish to hear how the amendment would be handled now, or would you prefer…?

I see nodding heads, so Suzie, please proceed.

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): An amendment at this stage of the process is different from the amendments members typically see during Committee of the Whole proceedings on public bills. In this situation, following submissions by the applicant and any other interested parties, an amendment could be proposed by a member during the committee’s proceedings or otherwise agreed to by resolution of the committee.

Following the decision of the committee on the amendment, the bill would then be reprinted to include the amendment before being recommended to the House. The committee report is presented by the Chair, and that committee report would also report favourably on the bill as amended. Once the report from the committee is adopted by the House, the bill can then proceed, as I mentioned earlier, through the remaining stages, including committee stage, which includes clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

[8:20 a.m.]

It has been the custom of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to grant leave to proceed through all remaining stages in one day. However, there would be an exception if, during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, an amendment were to be made by the Committee of the Whole. If that were to occur, the bill would need to be reprinted before it would be eligible for third reading.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you very much.

Before I turn it over to our colleague, MLA Sturdy, who is the sponsor of the bill, I perhaps suggest to the committee members that we’ll hold any questions that we may have until we’ve heard from all of the witnesses today.

Go ahead, MLA Sturdy.

Consideration of Private Bills

BILL Pr401 — SEA TO SKY
UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

J. Sturdy: Thank you, Chair. I’m pleased to be here to be the sponsor of this bill. Sea to Sky University is a unique and important institution and has grown in importance and stature, both in the district of Squamish as well as internationally.

It’s recognized as a unique liberal arts and science university with a pedagogy whereby the undergraduates, essentially, develop and answer a question over the period of their time at school. It’s more like a graduate degree in many respects.

I think we’ve seen the graduates of this university go on to some amazing careers and right into…. In fact, skipping graduate degrees and going into doctorates. It’s amazing where they have gone around the world.

It’s increasingly important in the district of Squamish as a centre, as a hub and as the only post-secondary institution that we have that’s really active in Squamish and very much supported by the district as well as by the population of the community.

When I talk and go to the university and speak with students there or participate in some of the classes, they are great students from all over the world. They have excellent questions, and they really are engaged. I can’t say enough about…. It’s hard to be as passionate as they are about their institution, but I try.

It was developed by Dr. Strangway. It opened up in 2007. Unfortunately, over the course of a number of years, it faced some very challenging financial circumstances, which ultimately forced the sale of the university.

The existing legislation allows for a tax exemption on owned land, and what we’re seeking here is to amend that to allow for a tax exemption on leased land as well. There is some precedence out there, and I’m sure the ministry can speak to that, if necessary. I believe Trinity Western has the same exemption on leased land. One can imagine that in a circumstance where we have an institution like this that is under a triple-net lease situation, the tax implications can be fairly significant to the university.

So seeking that exemption for property tax. It does — I think, importantly to know — have the full support of the district of Squamish, which would be the main party that would be impacted by the exemption.

I think, in terms of the amendment to the legislation, we would have liked to have seen that amendment come forward earlier, because we don’t collectively have any objection to the amendment. I think the preference of the group is to do the amendment at this particular time as opposed to later.

I’m happy to answer any questions.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you, MLA Sturdy.

Next we will hear from Quest University. Mr. Warren, would you like to start off by introducing your colleagues?

J. Warren: Thank you, Chair. I am Dr. Jeff Warren, and I serve as vice-president, academic, at Quest University. I’ve worked at Quest, in faculty or in administration, since 2013. Joining me today is Dr. George Iwama, who is the president and vice-chancellor of Quest; and Bernard Nadeau, who is the vice-president, finance and operations.

Shall I speak a little further?

M. Dykeman (Chair): Yes. Please proceed.

[8:25 a.m.]

J. Warren: Okay. I’m pleased to speak to you about Bill Pr401, the Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022.

A bit about Quest. After retiring as president of the University of British Columbia in 1997, Dr. David Strangway turned his attention to what he saw as a significant problem in higher education, which was creating exceptional undergraduate learning experiences. His vision led to the passing of the Sea to Sky University Act in 2002, which, under the name Quest University Canada, welcomed its first class in 2007. Since then, over 1,000 students have graduated from the university, going on to serve in all areas of society and into many different areas of graduate studies.

Quest has always had a strong link with the local community, including with the district of Squamish and with the Squamish Nation. Quest also has significant links to the global educational community through partnerships and consortia, and we continue to have an impact upon universities worldwide who seek to learn from our nationally recognized educational practices, where we teach one course at a time and students take ownership of their studies through a self-designed problem formed around students asking a question.

In January of 2020, Quest entered into financial restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, or CCAA. Although the process was amplified by the pandemic, Quest successfully exited from CCAA in November of 2020.

Part of the financial restructuring resulted in Quest selling its land and entering then into a lease on the campus that we operate on. One result of leasing rather than owning the campus is that Quest is now subject to property tax when it was not previously subject to property tax, as the Sea to Sky University Act only considered that Quest would own the land it operates on. This has material impact upon the sustainability of our operations.

In 2021, we paid $620,000 in tax related to our campus and $45,000 related to our residences. Both of these items were exempt in the prior year and, to put it in perspective, is equivalent to about 35 students’ worth of tuition at our current average financial age rate.

Parallel not-for-profit institutions operating under their own act, such as Trinity Western University, have provisions for exemption from taxation for campus space that is either owned or leased. This is also consistent with public universities that either operate under the University Act or operate under their own act, such as Royal Roads University.

The content and the background of the proposed amendment was presented to the mayor and council of the district of Squamish. They passed a motion to provide a letter supporting this amendment and sent a letter to Minister Kang last October. We thank the district of Squamish for their support.

We’ve talked about the amendment that is in a letter today from Minister Kang that notes a request to limit the lease taxation provision to within the district of Squamish, where Quest’s campus is located, and we’re happy to support this change and the proposed language in the letter. We thank Minister Kang, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance for consulting on this matter and for proposing and supporting the revised language.

In summary, the aim of this amendment is to avoid a negative impact upon Quest for leasing the same campus that it has operated on as landowners for the past 15 years by seeking to make the Sea to Sky University Act consistent with parallel acts.

Thank you for your consideration, and thanks to MLA Jordan Sturdy for the sponsorship of the bill. George, Ber­nard and I are happy to respond to any questions that you might have.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Warren.

Next, we’ll hear from the Ministries of Advanced Education and Skills Training, Finance and Municipal Affairs. Members will recall that our committee received a submission from the Minister of Advanced and Skills Training which recommended an amendment to the bill, and I’m advised that the Ministries of Finance and Municipal Affairs are also in support of the amendment.

Nicola, I understand that you’ll be speaking on behalf of the three ministries. Is that correct?

N. Lemmer: Yes.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Wonderful. Thank you. I will turn it over to you, then.

N. Lemmer: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training supports Quest University in its efforts to recover from its financial difficulties so it can continue to deliver quality educational programs to its students.

[8:30 a.m.]

The ministry also wants to ensure that the expanded property tax exemption only applies to land leased in the district of Squamish, because of Squamish’s special relationship with Quest University and because only Squamish has specifically expressed support for the amendment.

The proposed change to the amendment will provide financial consistency to Quest University while not unintentionally creating an exemption for leased land held by Quest University that applies within other municipalities. We ask the committee to consider the proposed amendment tabled by Minister Kang that amends the bill to indicate that only land owned by the university or leased in the district of Squamish by the university be exempt from property tax.

Thank you. I’m happy to answer any questions.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you. Now we will open up the floor for questions. Are there any questions from committee members?

G. Begg: The beneficial owner of the leased land is the corporation of the district of Squamish or the university.

G. Iwama: To clarify the question, is the question: who owns the land?

G. Begg: Who is the beneficial owner of the land?

G. Iwama: The land has been sold and is owned by Pri­macorp Ventures. The tax flows through to the university, so our operating budget pays the tax bill. Does that help? I’m not sure if I understood the question.

G. Begg: Yes. That’s my point. The land is owned by — again, you said…?

G. Iwama: Our partner is Primacorp Ventures, who bought the land from Quest.

G. Begg: And the relationship of Primacorp to the university is what?

G. Iwama: We pay the lease to them. We also procure some key services such as marketing, communications, recruitment and fundraising. We procure services…. They are our service provider as well as the landowner.

G. Begg: And do you know more about Primacorp?

G. Iwama: Yes, we know quite a bit about them. They have interests and practices in education as well as in health care, both in Canada and around the world.

M. Lee (Deputy Chair): I appreciate all the representatives being here, particularly from Quest University. I wanted to come back to, because we went through all the presentations together….

Certainly Dr. David Strangway I knew well, when he was at UBC and I was the student body president there back in the early ’90s. His vision certainly has been tremendous for this university.

Can I just go back, though, first of all, to the Ministry of Advanced Ed? When Minister Kang said in her letter that we needed to ensure the amendments adhere closely to the original intent of the Sea to Sky University Act…. That act doesn’t have any geographic restriction on it. The ownership is just ownership of lands. So what did the minister mean by that when she indicated the intent vis-à-vis location of activity by the university?

D. Rogers: I can answer on behalf of the Ministry of Advanced Education. The vision of David Strangway was for the university to be an in-resident university based in Squamish. As you might know, the act also references Squamish in the act itself, so it has strong ties to the district of Squamish.

M. Lee (Deputy Chair): To reconfirm with the leadership of Quest University…. I appreciate the difficult time the pandemic presented, particularly for an in-site resident university of this nature. Before that, though, and coming out of the pandemic, understanding that there’s a new structural relationship here, has there been any consideration of other operations by Quest, or is it the plan of the university to continue to be where it is, situated in Squa­mish? Are there any other operations that the university might consider in the future?

[8:35 a.m.]

G. Iwama: Thank you. That’s a very important question, MLA Lee. The university, from its inception, was designed and conceived as an in-residence learning experience. We certainly, in the short term, aspire to saturate the current campus. It can accommodate 750 or so students in the current state of facilities. We have the room to easily expand that number to 1,300, should we build another academic building and residences, without great disruption or clearing of land around us.

I dream of a successful Quest down the road whereby we see ourselves in other parts of the world. We have partners currently. We started a block plan network where schools as far as Melbourne, Australia, have converted to the block program. This is a school of 25,000 students. So as our model gains attention, interest and support, I can see…. I’m not sure whether that will materialize in the way of partnerships or if Quest on its own will seek new locations by growth, by necessity, sometime in the future.

Certainly, our current aspiration is to make full use of the current site we are located in and to continue to enjoy the support we receive from Squamish and the corridor.

M. Dykeman (Chair): A follow-up from MLA Lee.

M. Lee (Deputy Chair): Just back to ministry staff. There was some mention of other precedent — TWU, for example. Across other similar exemptions, are they also site-specific, I presume. Is that right? TWU is site-specific to that municipality that they reside in, or is that the nature of the exemption that we’re referring to when we do that by way of analogy?

D. Rogers: There are three universities that are established under a private act. Trinity Western University first got its exemption for all leased land in 1969, when it was a theological college. Both the Sea to Sky University Act and another act, the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, received an exemption for owned property only.

With theological colleges that have private acts, the range of leased or owned land goes from no exemptions to full exemptions, so there’s no pattern.

A. Olsen: With respect to the minister’s letter — it doesn’t seem to be dated — that’s on the desk in front of us here, the minister references that in order to ensure that this amendment is consistent with the Sea to Sky University Act…. It’s on page 2.

Did this amendment that the minister is requesting also include “in the district of Squamish” to the amendment? Can someone please explain how the addition of “in the district of Squamish” makes it more consistent with the Sea to Sky University Act than it would be without it?

M. Dykeman (Chair): Would anybody like to take that question?

D. Rogers: Well, it is that the university was established as an in-resident university in the district of Squamish, and with that act going forward, it was understood that the institution was attached to the district of Squamish.

T. Loughran: It doesn’t specifically reference in the letter from the minister, but this act needs to be read in conjunction with the Degree Authorization Act, which is the province’s standard for degree-granting institutions in the province. Quest is a degree-granting institution, and its consent was granted by the minister after a rigorous review and was renewed recently after the transaction with Primacorp.

[8:40 a.m.]

It specifically approved the operation of the institution in Quest. That’s what the degree authorization allows for Quest. So it’s not within any other community. I think they need to be read in conjunction, not just with the Sea to Sky University Act but the minister’s consent letter under the DAA, the Degree Authorization Act, if that helps.

B. Anderson: I’m not sure exactly who this question is directed to. I do appreciate the work that the university does. I have friends that have gone through and have done really amazing things, and I appreciate that people are looking to your university to see how they might be able to model their education system off of yours. I think that that’s fantastic.

My concern is…. Maybe this is within the contract, or there’s something else I don’t know about, but with this amendment, there’s no guarantee that the tax exemption is actually in the best interests of the school, the students or the public good, necessarily. It really benefits a private corporation here and into the future.

I’m wondering how we’re able to ensure that those savings are passed on, that we’re not just creating an exemption for even a…. I don’t know if they’re Canadian or not. They’re certainly not…. It doesn’t sound like it is the district itself or another public entity. I just have a hard time with that.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Would anybody like to answer that question? Yes. Go ahead.

B. Nadeau: One part of this is that the act includes, “for educational purposes,” so it would be specific to that. But also, Quest is still a board-governed institution. The amendment to this act only applies to Quest University and our activities themselves and not whatever this private organization would want to do. It’s very specific to what Quest does and what Quest, as a board-governed, degree-granting institution does.

G. Iwama: May I add to that?

Thank you very much for this very excellent question, MLA Anderson. We find ourselves in a precarious, very sensitive time of rebuilding. The tax bill flows through to us, to our operating expenses, and it is vitally important now. But I appreciate the fact that we are considering not just this time in history, but going forward.

It is a very insightful question. I appreciate that. But as Bernard has said, as a board-governed, not-for-profit, independent institution of learning that the original act created, we are the bearers of that cost. I’d like to emphasize that.

B. Anderson: Thank you so much, both of you, for responding to that. I guess my question would be…. It says: “For the purposes of education.” That seems, also…. It could be very broadly applied unless there’s a really specific definition. I don’t know, within different legislation, how narrow that is or if it could potentially be applied to a lot of different things.

Learning opportunities — you could kind of pass off anything as a learning opportunity. I’m not sure if that’s the case. I just don’t know how diluted a learning opportunity could get, even if the intention at this time is to maintain that integrity. I’m wondering if, down the road, that could be diluted by a corporation.

J. Warren: To respond to that, earlier in the act, it describes what range of educational offerings could be of­fered. These are educational offerings that are specific to Quest University, the board-governed not-for-profit, that is leasing land from a private organization. If Quest were to cease operations, or if Quest were to leave that campus for some reason, that exemption wouldn’t stay with that land. It would stay with Quest, which is operating under that act.

Of course, we are in a long-term lease and intend to stay there, but if that were to change in the future, the exemption isn’t with the land but with the operations under the act, which are governed by the board.

[8:45 a.m.]

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Warren.

I have just a couple of speakers on the list. I have MLA Olsen, followed by Deputy Chair Lee.

A. Olsen: That’s fine. Dr. Warren just answered my question.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Okay. Thank you, MLA Olsen. Over to you, Deputy Chair.

M. Lee (Deputy Chair): Just for clarity, for the committee’s understanding — and certainly appreciate MLA Anderson’s questions — the amendment to section 11(1) is to the section that reads, “All property owned by the university and used for educational purposes is exempt from taxation under the Local Government Act, the School Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.” The addition of the words, as raised by MLA Anderson, is: “or leased in the district of Squamish by the university.”

My understanding of this amendment is really for virtue of the financial challenges of the university. Originally, we have an act that enabled the exemption from taxation from those three acts for the educational purposes which are set out in detail in the act under section 3, which Dr. Warren and Mr. Nadeau just commented on. They’re fairly detailed in nature in terms of the nature of the description of the university’s activities, and to accomplish those purposes.

In terms of the actual change in character, this is really enabling the change in operations of the land, going from ownership to lease arrangement. It’s certainly not expanding the scope of the nature of the exemption that’s pro­vided under the current section 11(1) of the act. Can I just confirm that that is correct, to the ministry? Can the ministry confirm that that is correct?

M. Dykeman (Chair): Would anybody like to answer that?

N. Lemmer: Yes, that is correct. The other thing to note is that under the Degree Authorization Act, an institution is authorized to deliver programs in a site-specific location, so there are further constraints as to where a private university or degree-granting institution can provide educational services.

S. Hawkshaw: B.C. Assessment does periodic checks to make sure that organizations qualify for their tax exemption, so if there’s a requirement that they be used for a particular purpose, they will be checking and making sure that that’s still happening.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Any other questions from committee members?

Seeing none, it’s now our responsibility as a committee to consider what we have heard and determine whether we are in agreement with the recommended amendment, and if the preamble of the bill has been proved to our satisfaction and if the bill should proceed.

I now suggest that we take a five-minute recess to allow our guests time to leave, if they choose — you may stay — and just to prepare for the vote.

We will head into recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 8:48 a.m. to 8:57 a.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

M. Dykeman (Chair): We had left off just giving everybody an opportunity to head out. We are considering the amendment.

Is there any general discussion on the recommended amendment, the preamble of the bill, or if the bill should proceed?

N. Letnick: Given that Quest was not paying the taxes before, and given their mandate and what they do, they should continue to not pay the taxes. Therefore, I would fully support the bill and the amendment to the bill.

K. Paddon: I appreciate all the answers and information. I was sitting over here and taking it all in.

It’s my understanding that actually, there’s agreement to the amendment by everyone who’s here today and that this would, as MLA Letnick just described, just continue the spirit of what was already happening when the property was owned.

I think the agreement by all parties was a good indicator that this is going in the right direction.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Seeing no further speakers, if members are prepared to proceed, there are two draft motions for our consideration. Jennifer will circulate those to members now.

Committee Report to the House

BILL Pr401 — SEA TO SKY
UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

M. Dykeman (Chair): Is there a member prepared to move the first motion with respect to the recommended amendment?

M. Lee (Deputy Chair): I move:

[That Clause 1 of Bill (No. Pr 401) Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, be amended by striking out “owned or leased by the university” and substituting “owned by the university, or leased in the District of Squamish by the university,”.]

M. Dykeman (Chair): Any debate on the motion?

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Is there a member prepared to move the second motion?

K. Paddon: I move:

[That the Committee report to the House that the preamble of Bill (No. Pr 401) Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022 has been proved to its satisfaction and that it reports favourably on the Bill, as amended.]

M. Dykeman (Chair): Any debate on the motion?

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you, Members.

During the break, I spoke with Deputy Chair Lee. With the pressure of time and the fact that the bill would need to be reprinted, we proposed that we come back together for another short meeting. Would that be all right with the members, to give us time to properly discuss the report and consider the bill?

Seeing that everybody is in agreement with that, and the nodding of heads….

[9:00 a.m.]

M. Lee (Deputy Chair): That’s with the understanding that the report back will just be reflective of the two motions we just passed.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Yes, absolutely. It would be exactly what we would consider, plus the bill reprinted with the amendment in consideration, which would then allow an opportunity for proper discussion, without it being cut short on time.

All right. Seeing that, then, Jennifer will facilitate that meeting.

Is there any other business?

Role of Parliamentary Reform Committee
in Debating Private Members’ Bills

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity. I’ve been reflecting on the coming together of this committee and recognizing the role that this committee has played for a long time in this chamber, as has been explained, with respect to parliamentary reform and, specifically, the standing orders.

In preparation for this, I was going to bring a motion to the floor but have been convinced to leave it for now. This is around private members’ bills, recognizing this is separate from the issue of private bills. But this is the business of private members, and the ability for a private member to put a bill before the House and have it debated and voted on is something that, I think, is of the interest of every member of the Legislative Assembly, save cabinet, who regularly bring forward bills and have them debated.

As I’ve looked across the country at various legislatures and to the House of Commons, they all make accommodation, in various ways. They each have their own unique way of doing it. British Columbia seems to be unique in our inability to get private members’ bills a time and space within the daily and the weekly calendar. It is at the desire of government whether a private member’s bill is debated and voted on.

I think we’ve seen an example recently where a private member’s bill was debated on for a very brief time, and there’s no guarantee that that bill — that the process will finish.

I have had a conversation with the Government House Leader on this. In preparation for this meeting, I was thinking about various ways to maybe have this committee tasked with reviewing — a jurisdictional scan of what is going on across the country in our legislatures, our colleagues in various provinces and the members from the House of Commons — and maybe bring back to government some recommendations as to how we can improve the standing orders here in the B.C. Legislature to ensure that all members have the ability and all constituents have the understanding that their elected representatives are able to bring forward bills.

Minister Farnworth, the Government House Leader, told me he is looking into this and, perhaps, will be bringing something back. I wanted to put it here, on the record today, that it’s my interest, and I think that it is the interest of all private members in the Legislature, that we have a different process than the one that is currently in this province and this Legislature, this Legislative Assembly.

I’m going to continue to work with the Government House Leader through our Third Party House Leader and through the House Leader of the official opposition to continue to find ways for this to happen. I really hope and believe that this committee is a place for that work to be done. I think that it doesn’t need to be a long process. The research that we’ve been able to come across was not very difficult to find. We could make recommendations to the government about how the standing orders could be amended to accommodate this.

I just wanted to plant a bit of a flag here today and just say that I think this is a committee that could seize itself of that, and it would be to the benefit of members on all sides, from all corners of the House, to have our private members’ bills debated and voted on.

With that, I’ll leave it there. I’m hoping that this process continues. Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair.

M. Dykeman (Chair): Thank you for your comments, MLA Olsen.

Any other business?

Seeing none, I will now seek a motion to adjourn.

Moved by MLA Paddon.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:05 a.m.