Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

REDEEMER REFORMED CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ACT, 1998

CONTENTS

Wednesday 17 June 1998

Redeemer Reformed Christian College Act, 1998, Bill Pr17, Mr Skarica

Dr Justin Cooper

Dr Elaine Botha

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Viktor Kaczkowski

Staff / Personnel

Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.

REDEEMER REFORMED CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ACT, 1998

Consideration of BillPr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for Wednesday, June 17, 1998.

You have an agenda and attachments before you. This morning we will be proceeding with item number 2 on the agenda, Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College. The applicants are at the witness table. I would ask MPP Toni Skarica, member for Wentworth North, for some introductory remarks, and then we'll have introductions of the applicants.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): It's my privilege to introduce the private bill, Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College. If I could just introduce the representatives of the college who are here, to my immediate right is Elaine Botha, who is vice-president, academic, of the college. To her right is Dr Justin D. Cooper, president of the college. To his right is Albert Bakker, solicitor to the college, and to his right is Ben Harsevoort, chairperson for the board of governors for the college.

The bill is a compilation of the present bill respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College and introduces two changes. First are a number of housekeeping matters. Second, and the main reason for the bill, is to revise the college's degree-granting authority to permit it to issue BA and bachelor of science degrees consistent with the liberal arts and science programs it already offers under its current charter.

There has been widespread acceptance of these programs as being equivalent to programs offered by universities that have degree-granting powers across Canada and abroad. Dr Cooper will be submitting a list of those institutions. The Ministry of Education recently undertook a review of the programs offered by the college. The academic review panel reviewed the current programs and concluded in a letter dated June 15, 1998, which again will be provided to you by Dr Cooper -- it's signed by the Honourable David Johnson, Minister of Education -- that Redeemer College provides arts and science undergraduate education of an Ontario university standard.

The bottom line is that the act attempts to, and in fact does, formalize in law what already is accepted in fact by the educational community and the ministry and in Ontario, Canada and abroad, that the programs offered by Redeemer College are of a university standard and equivalent to university programs that do offer and are entitled to give BA and BSc degrees, and would give Redeemer the same degree-granting power. Dr Cooper also will indicate some of the benefits, from both economic and educational standpoints, for the province.

Those are my introductory remarks.

The Chair: Dr Cooper, do you wish to make some comments?

Dr Justin Cooper: Thank you very much. It's a privilege to be here to speak to Bill Pr17, the charter amendment of Redeemer College.

I would like to begin by just explaining who we are. Redeemer College is not a bible college or a theological college. It's sometimes misunderstood for that. It's also not a community college or an applied arts college. Rather, what we are is an interdenominational Christian liberal arts college offering an undergraduate arts and science university education from a Christian perspective on the basis of the provincial degree-granting charter which we received in 1980.

We're located in Ancaster, Ontario. We have a 78-acre campus and we serve some 500 students who come largely from Ontario but also from six other provinces, 14 countries and from 30 different denominational backgrounds. We are a unique institution and, to the best of our knowledge, the only one of our kind in the province of Ontario. We are also a regular member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

I think it's also important to clarify for the committee what we're asking for here today. We've mentioned already that we have an existing charter. In fact, Bill Pr17, which you have before you, is largely our original charter with a few amendments that pertain, firstly, to some housekeeping matters in our governance, and, secondly, to revising the names of the degrees that we would offer to the students who complete programs.

I'd like to stress that we're not seeking powers to offer new programs. We already have that under our existing charter. What we are asking for is a change in the names of our degrees to BA and BSc, which you find in section 7(9). Two other items that I would highlight: an increase in the number of general board members to 21, which is in section 4, and we're also wanting to add alumni members to our board and senate. You find those matters in sections 4(2) and 7(1).

Why are we seeking this? I would like the committee to be aware that our programs are widely recognized by universities as the equivalent of a BA/BSc program, as Mr Skarica has mentioned. But it's also the case that at times our degrees are misunderstood as representing degrees in theological studies. We feel that this change will eliminate the confusion about what our programs actually are. It's also a question of fairness for our students, that they will be able to have a degree which represents the work they have done and they will be able to apply for jobs and for application to graduate school on the same basis as other students.

At the same time, granting us the BA/BSc degrees will also give the choice of an Ontario alternative to the over 1,000 students who now leave our province to pursue a Christian liberal arts education which leads to the BA/BSc in other provinces and in the United States. That's the niche market we serve, and we'd like to be equipped to serve and attract these students and keep them in our province.

Of course, as we give them the incentive to study in Ontario, I think you should also be aware that that keeps at least $11,000 to $12,000 per student in the Ontario economy. It also enhances the possibility of more quality graduate students applying to Ontario universities. We like to summarize that in terms of scholars and dollars as a reason why we are seeking this.

Of course, the major point we want to make is that through our track record we have demonstrated that we meet Ontario university standards, not only through our AUCC membership but also through our established track records where our graduates have been admitted to a wide range of graduate and professional programs at over 65 graduate institutions in Ontario, in Canada, in the United States, in Europe and in Australia. We have a list here that we'd be willing to circulate to members of the committee, if you haven't seen that, which demonstrates that.

The committee should also be aware that our liberal arts curriculum and our science programs have been reviewed by the University of Guelph. We have established an articulation agreement with them in chemistry and biochemistry whereby students can complete three years at Redeemer and a year to a year and a half at Guelph to get the honours bachelor of science.

I think most significantly, we have successfully undergone an academic assessment by a peer review panel as mandated by the Minister of Education. That panel unanimously concluded that our liberal arts and science programs are of an Ontario university standard. In fact, Dr George Connell, who chaired that committee -- he was joined by Dr Ron Childs from McMaster and Dr Ross Rudolph from York University -- wrote us in the concluding letter that they found us to be an impressive institution. That was echoed in the letter from the minister, which I will refer to again in a moment.

In order to maintain quality at our institution we've also agreed to be reviewed every seven years as part of the cyclical undergraduate program review process which is carried out by the Council of Ontario Universities. This is something, again, that we discussed with the ministry and with the minister.

Finally, I think it's important in the financial area for this committee to be aware that we are funded by tuition, by ancillary revenues and by donations -- completely privately funded -- and that we have committed in writing to the minister that we will not seek government operating or capital funding. So this happens without cost to the taxpayer.

In summary, I'd like the committee to be aware that we have a wide base of support and that we have dealt with all the stakeholders in this. We've consulted with the Council of Ontario Universities and the council has no objections, as confirmed to me in a meeting with its chair, Professor Robert Prichard, the president of the University of Toronto. We've cooperated with the Ministry of Education and we have the support of the Minister of Education, which he has given us in a letter that I will also submit, where he concludes: "Please accept my congratulations on an outstanding assessment. Ontario is indeed fortunate to have Redeemer College as part of its postsecondary system and I wish Redeemer the very best in its future development."

As you read that letter, you will also note that the minister has asked us to commit to looking at our review process for faculty appeals. That is a technical matter. I can go into it more if you as a committee would like, but let me just say that we concur and we've indicated in writing to the minister that we will undertake to alter our appeal process for faculty evaluations in order to improve it. In that way, the review was very, very helpful to us.

I'd also like to mention that we have local support in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, including all-party consent among all of our local MPPs. I'm very happy to see David Christopherson here this morning, who is one of those, along with our local Liberal member and all of the Conservative members.

Finally, we have strong support among members of our province-wide supporting constituencies, which include members of all of the 30 denominations that send students to us. I have also for the committee some sample letters so that you can see some of the letters of support which we have.

For these reasons, we are hoping that also this committee will support our private bill. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Cooper. Do any of the other applicants wish to make comments at this time?

Dr Elaine Botha: Not at this point in time.

The Chair: Secondly, are there any interested parties who wish to speak to this bill? I see none.

At this point, we ask MPP Ernie Hardeman, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and good morning.

As with all private bills, the bill has been circulated throughout the government establishment. Of course, being an education bill, the only minister who has made any significant comment is the Minister of Education. As was mentioned by the member for Wentworth North, upon receiving the review of the academic review panel, the minister was convinced that the type of program provided at Redeemer College is of such a standard that this bill would be applicable.

In the letter I have at least, and that I think the member for Wentworth North referred to, the minister lends his support to the bill. Not to suggest that the committee should necessarily do what the minister says. As it is a private bill, the members of committee can vote their wishes, but from the government point of view the general thrust of the bill obviously is housekeeping amendments, as was mentioned by the applicant, to change the members of the board and the number of the members of the board and so forth.

The only issue of some debate is the degree-granting authority and the minister is supportive of that. We would leave that up to the committee members to vote if they see fit, but the government does support the passage of the private bill.

1020

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman. We now call for questions from committee members directed either to the applicants or to the parliamentary assistant, beginning with Mr Shea.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I was going to ask a question, and now in the light of the last comments of the parliamentary assistant, I can simply make a comment. This is probably one of the most concise, well-presented, thought-out presentations I have heard in some time. My compliments to Mr Skarica, to all the members of the provincial Parliament in the region who have given their support and worked together, and to the applicants. I find this a treat to have it presented in such a precise fashion and it's very helpful. Obviously I will be very supportive.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a couple of questions and maybe some comments as well. To Dr Cooper, you talked about really the unique role of Redeemer College and some of the changes; some are of a housekeeping nature, others will allow the granting of degrees for arts and liberal arts programs. In your previous terms of reference, you had the ability to do that if it was done in association with another institution, a university established under an act of the Legislature or another body which is recognized as well. Why do you feel that you need to make this kind of change, from that arrangement to this one where you stand on your own?

Dr Cooper: Thank you for that question. I think the section of our bill you're referring to is the one that talks about concluding agreements with other institutions in section 3. The thumbnail for that I guess is affiliation.

Mr Caplan: Yes.

Dr Cooper: I think it's fair to say that earlier in our history we explored the route of affiliation and we found that we were not able to come to an affiliation agreement that was acceptable, both to ourselves mutually and to our host university. We were not able to find a university that really was interested in pursuing affiliation. So while it's in the charter as an option, it really isn't a realistic or a live option, we found.

When we talked with the Council of Ontario Universities in April, Bonnie Patterson, the president, indicated to us that in their view, the presidents having talked about this, affiliation really was not an option either. They said a forced affiliation really is in no one's interest. So for a variety of reasons, and I can go into those if you like, we have explored it and just found it not to be a realistic option in our case.

Mr Caplan: To offer the programming you do and have the appropriate designation, you're not able to go into the kind of arrangement that you were allowed to previously, so you need this added ability to grant degrees for bachelor of arts, bachelor of science, in those kinds of areas?

Dr Cooper: For the programs we're offering, independently.

Mr Caplan: For the programs you're offering now. I understand you said that you went through a very thorough peer review. The minister has gone through that and there will be a cyclical review as well, and that's something you've agreed to. I think that's critically important, that there be quality control for our post-secondary institutions, and I'm very pleased to hear that.

I have a couple of further questions. As you know, Dr Cooper, I believe in 1984 there was the Robarts policy which talked about new degree-granting institutions and new universities, and the recommendation or the policy which has been in place since then has been not to grant any new universities or degree-granting institutions. Why should Redeemer College be exempted from that policy which has been in place essentially for the last 15 years?

Dr Cooper: The reference you make I think is to the degree-granting act that was brought in in 1984, which really did restrict degree-granting to those institutions which would be so authorized by an act of the assembly. I believe the answer to your question probably lies in a parallel that we would draw between, say, our situation and Ryerson.

Ryerson is an existing institution and the Legislative Assembly amended their charter, because prior to 1993 they granted a restricted degree and they then made the argument, similar to that we're making, that they needed regular degrees to represent their programs. I think Ryerson's charter was amended without touching the Robarts policy. They were viewed as a necessary exception because they were an existing institution, not a new institution. I think we would make a similar argument that we are an existing institution, rather than a new institution, and so in a similar way to Ryerson, should have our charter amended, which doesn't abrogate the Robarts policy.

Maybe I can put it in a different way. We received our charter in 1980, which was before the restrictions were brought in in 1984. So in that sense it's fair that we be grandfathered in, as it were.

Mr Caplan: I'm comfortable with that. I just have one final comment and maybe it's a question as well. Does this open the door really to a variety of these kinds of arrangements, degree-granting capabilities for other types of post-secondary institutions, both public and private, across Ontario?

Maybe I can delve a little bit further into that. My concern is that if it does, once that door is open, I don't know if you'll ever be able to get that closed and what kind of policy that is going to make in Ontario. So please give me some assurance, Dr Cooper or the parliamentary assistant, if you will, that there is still some control, if you will, on behalf of the Minister of Education to keep that door firmly established.

Dr Cooper: I can certainly say that the kind of question you're raising is also one that was raised in our discussions with representatives of the COU. In that context, they and we came to the conclusion that we are a unique case, based on the fact that we already have a charter, that we are already degree-granting, that we are an existing institution, that we're a member of the AUCC, and also we have passed a rigorous academic assessment by a peer review panel. My understanding is that this is being dealt with as an exceptional case.

I can't speak to government policy, but I certainly can tell you what it is that I've been hearing as we've talked to people in the ministry, as we've talked to people at COU. The sense was that this will not open the door, that this is a unique, special case.

1030

Mr Hardeman: I echo the comments just made, that in fact it is a unique situation. I point out that with support from the council of universities and all others involved, they too realize this is a unique situation.

I would also point out that from the government's perspective, this is not changing the programming at Redeemer College. This is just to change the end result of that programming. I think through the peer committee review they have come to the conclusion that Redeemer College is providing the program that would warrant the awarding of the degree that's being asked for. This just allows them to award it the same as any other institution providing exactly the same quality of program. The review process that is in place and that is being put in place, I think, will ensure that the world would recognize that degree, or could recognize that degree, with the degree of confidence required in the future. I think that's why we see it as a unique situation and not necessarily opening the door to every program that's presently being provided as a certificate, that that would automatically be eligible to have a degree.

Mr Caplan: I hear the parliamentary assistant and Dr Cooper, and I will be supportive of this. I do have the caution, and it is my most fervent hope, that the words of the parliamentary assistant and of the government are that in fact there is sufficient control, if you will, in this instance. These things often take on a life of their own, but if that is the position of the government, I can certainly buy that. As I say, I will be supporting the application.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm looking at the list of your graduates and where they've been accepted and it's really quite impressive. This really speaks for itself. We've heard some other applications some time in the past and I've always thought you're actually doing us a favour in Ontario. It's probably too bad that you've had to go through this long and delayed process. My first question is, how long has it taken you to arrive at this, from the first time you approached a ministry to receive degree-granting status? How long has that process taken you, and how much do you think it has cost you to arrive at this point where you see light at the end of the tunnel?

Dr Cooper: Thank you for the opportunity to share that. We began the process in 1985 and we submitted briefs to the --

Mr Shea: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Did I hear "1985"?

Dr Cooper: Correct; 13 years.

Mr Shea: I understood the significance of that date.

Dr Cooper: I don't know what it has cost us in terms of time and money, but we have submitted briefs to governments represented by all three parties in this room, to quite a string of education ministers. We made submissions to a hearing from the Ontario Council on University Affairs in 1989. We made another submission to the Smith commission hearing in October 1996. We are pleased that we finally now are at this point.

We understand, I would also submit, that it takes time to build an academic reputation. Our first graduates were in 1986, so in a sense it's taken us 10 to 12 years to build up the reputation. In academic time, that's understandable, I think. At the same time, it has felt like this has taken a long time.

Mr Ruprecht: So there's no dollar figure attached to it. If my memory serves me correctly, I don't remember having sat on any committee that discussed this matter when we, as Liberals, were in office.

Mr Shea: If I were you, I'd run away.

Mr Ruprecht: It was probably only the NDP or the Conservatives.

Mr Shea: I'd take this to a vote if I were you, Mr Ruprecht. I'd run away from it.

Mr Hardeman: The Liberals didn't get this far.

Mr Ruprecht: Having said that, I want to congratulate you. Good luck and God speed.

The Chair: The next question will be from Mr Christopherson.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It's not a question, just a statement.

Welcome again, Dr Cooper. It's good to see you. I appreciate the fact that you took time to go around and meet with all of us as local members. You had the former education minister, Dr Richard Allen, with you when you and I met and, of course, I took this to our caucus and we were unanimously supportive of the bill.

To that extent, I also want to compliment my colleague Toni Skarica. We will continue, I'm sure forever, to disagree on some basic philosophical and fundamental issues, but in the spirit and tradition of our community, when it's a local issue that shouldn't have any controversy around it, we've always tried to pull together to offer as much support as we can for our community regardless of our partisan affiliation. This is one of those cases. In this regard, as in others, Toni has done an excellent job of representing his constituents and I'm very pleased to be here to offer the support of my party.

I would just mention, too, so that it is on the record, that as a former regional councillor myself, I certainly recognize the importance of Redeemer College to our overall larger community, the regional community we're all a part of. This college will now, if you will, join on a more equal footing the excellent reputation that Mohawk College and McMaster University have.

It also feeds very much into the diversification of our local economy. We are, of course, one of the larger industrial centres of Canada. It's been important for us to diversify over the last 10 or 15 years, and education and being a centre of excellence in the area of education has been a key component of that, extending all the way to our teaching hospitals, those of them that are still left. Clearly, this is an important part of that building process and the fact, as has been pointed out, that this is not precedent-setting at all, which was also our concern -- were we opening any doors here that we would regret down the road? That's not the case.

Clearly, this is the right thing to do, both for Redeemer College and for our larger community. I'm very pleased to be here to offer my personal support and that of my caucus colleagues, both to the college and to my colleague Toni Skarica in his endeavours regarding Bill 17.

Mr Hardeman: I want to echo Mr Christopherson's comments about the quality and the programming provided at Redeemer College. Though the college is not in my community, many people from my community go to Redeemer College. I represent a large, shall we say, ethnic community of a certain denomination in Europe and a lot of those tend to go for education at Redeemer College. We've had a considerable involvement with those and we appreciate the program provided.

I also want to comment a little bit on the length of the process, which was brought up by a previous spokesperson, that it has taken this long. I don't support that it should take that long, but it does point out that this was not a quick decision, that it was not all of sudden something the college asked for and was given. They have done a lot of work and a lot of study has been done to make sure that the world, when they see the degree that is presented through the college, has faith that it is a good-quality degree that they expect to get. I appreciate that it was too long, but I suggest that if it were only months instead of years, it might not be long enough, that there would not be enough information there to make a good decision.

Having said that, we spoke about the uniqueness of this application, that it is the only college that way. I want to point out for the committee's purposes the note we got from legislative research, that in fact this is a unique situation. This will be the first time that the government has granted this authority to a religious college. In the past the degrees have all been related to the religious instruction as opposed to general degrees. For the record, I want to point out that, through legislative research, that was information that was found. I think everyone should be aware that it is, if not a precedent to follow, a precedent decision that is being made, even though it may not be precedent-setting for others to follow. It is a unique bill before us. I just want to make sure that we, as a committee, are all aware of that.

The Chair: Are the members of the committee ready to vote?

We're voting on Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College, sponsored by MPP Skarica. I'm also anticipating a motion at the end of this process. In keeping with tradition, I wish to collapse several sections to facilitate voting. I am not aware of any amendments to any of the sections, so what I wish to do is to combine section 1 right through to section 14.

Shall sections 1 through 14 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I move that the fees and actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

The Chair: All in favour? Carried.

I wish to thank the applicants.

Mr Caplan: Who moved all that?

Mr Shea: I did.

Mr Caplan: You did? I was just curious. I thought that Mr Christopherson, if he was subbed into the committee, would want to do that given that he's a member in the area.

Mr Christopherson: It's not my regular standing committee. We're okay with this process.

Mr Shea: I would be not averse at all.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate that, but I believe I would have had to have a sub slip in. Knowing it wasn't going to be a divided vote, I wanted to be here to offer my moral support. But if one of you guys is going to get funny about this, I'll rush out and get one.

Mr Shea: If Mr Caplan's more exercised about it, we might help him if we put all the costs on his Legislative Assembly budget.

Mr Caplan: Just trying to help.

Mr Christopherson: I'll second that motion.

Mr Shea: All in favour? Carried. Thank you.

Mr Skarica: I'd like to thank all the members of the committee and all the parties involved. I can't tell you the sense of excitement that exists at Redeemer College at the present time. You've all contributed to that. I want to personally thank everyone for their kind comments to me personally, especially Mr Christopherson. He's said on a number of occasions -- it may even hurt my re-election chances, I don't know. But he's always been very kind to me from the very beginning. I consider him to be a good friend.

The Chair: I declare that order of business closed. I wish to thank all parties. I remind members we have some work to do next week.

The committee adjourned at 1043.