2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number 13

[ Page 14033 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would like to make an introduction this afternoon. Gracing us with his presence in the members gallery is the Manitoba Speaker, the Hon. George Hickes. George heads a delegation from Manitoba. Our Manitoba colleagues have met with both the Government and Opposition House Leaders this morning and also spent time in discussions with members of the Public Accounts Committee and with the government and opposition Whips.

I want to remind members that I've told Speaker Hickes that this is one of the best-behaved legislatures in Canada. So I'm sure that you won't let me down on this one. Would all members join me in a round of applause for Speaker Hickes. [Applause.]

[1335]

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself, I thank you for welcoming Speaker Hickes. His colleagues who are with him in the gallery this afternoon are Kevin Lamoureux; Gerald Hawranik, Opposition House Leader; Len Derkach, Chair of Public Accounts; and Jennifer Howard, vice-Chair of Public Accounts. Also with them is the Clerk of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, Patricia Chaychuk.

I would like to add my own little personal note here that I had the pleasure of enjoying some Manitoba hospitality last summer when I attended a Speakers' conference in Winnipeg. I wish to say that they really treated us very, very well. So would the House please join me in welcoming our Manitoba guests.

D. Routley: I would like to also add my welcome to Speaker Hickes. He was a very gracious host to us during that conference, and we learned that his nickname was the Cold-Water Cowboy because in his days in the Inuit areas of this country he and his brother were the only two people who were licensed to capture beluga whales before they were bred in captivity. He would jump off a boat that would be sailed up beside them and actually ride the whales.

So that is one very brave Speaker up there. Not that you're not very brave yourself there, Mr. Speaker, as we see on a daily basis. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

D. Routley: He swims in here regularly.

I would also like to have the House help me welcome two teachers from the Cowichan district: Ms. Lisa Leclerc and Ms. Sharon Hall. They're both teachers at L'Ecole Duncan Elementary. That was named Duncan Elementary School in my days, when I attended it. But it's now a French immersion school. They're very gracious guests of this House and the teachers academy here.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 56 grade 5 students visiting from the Pacific Academy, which is an outstanding school in British Columbia, from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their two teachers Mr. Rick Bath and Mrs. Nancy Bakken, along with 39 parent volunteers who have taken time away from their busy schedule to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join with me today in welcoming Kari Mathew, who is the teacher from Cariboo-Chilcotin. Her assignment places her at Williams Lake. She joined us this week as part of the Premier's teachers' innovation program. With that, I would ask the House to make her very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today we have a number of guests visiting, and I know they're no stranger to all members of this Legislature. They represent the Genome B.C. board of directors, and they're here to have their annual dinner and meeting. I would like to introduce Mr. David Dolphin, who is the chair of Genome B.C. Vancouver; Dr. Allan Pelman, vice-chair; Dr. Rosemary Ommer; Dr. Michael Stevenson; Ms. Jan Whitford; Dr. Alan Winter; Dr. Tony Brooks; Miss Liliane Forcier; Mr. Richard Howlett; and Mr. Peter O'Callaghan.

I just wish them all the very best in their deliberations and thank them for being here and the good work that they do. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

S. Fraser: Part of the contingent of stellar teachers visiting us this week…. One of those teachers is from my constituency. Robert Boates is here from Qualicum Elementary School. Would you all please join me in making him feel very welcome.

J. Nuraney: Among the group of teachers who are attending this Legislature today is a member, Tom Cikes. He is a teacher in Burnaby — a teacher who teaches at the youth detention centre. I think that's a very commendable job that he does. I would like the House to please join me in welcoming him.

J. Horgan: I have the pleasure today to introduce two constituents of the Leader of the Opposition. Anne-Marie DeLorey is the opposition caucus research director.

[1340]

She is joined by Hesquiat DeLorey-Tully, a grade 9 honours French immersion student from Victoria High School. Hesquiat plays bantam rep hockey for
[ Page 14034 ]
the Victoria Ice Hawks, who haven't been able to beat the Sooke Thunderbirds yet, but I'm sure they'll keep on trying. He's an avid rock drummer. He likes AC/DC. He's back in black. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Thorpe: Six years ago I rose in this House to announce the birth of my grandson Eben, or as I sometimes call him, Rocco. Tomorrow, February 27, at 10:30 p.m., Eben will celebrate his sixth birthday. To say he's the joy of our life is an understatement. Since this is the last time I will have the opportunity to wish my grandson a happy birthday in this House, I would ask all members to join with me in wishing Eben a very happy sixth birthday.

D. Hayer: We also have Brenda Ball, a teacher from Fleetwood Park Secondary School in my riding, who has been visiting here. Brenda has been selected to participate in the eighth annual B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. Would the House please make her welcome. She's a great teacher in Surrey.

Hon. T. Christensen: I would hope that the House will join me in welcoming Mr. Paul Boyd, who is one of the exceptional teachers at Charles Bloom Secondary in Lumby, a school I've had the opportunity to visit on a number of occasions. Paul is here attending the spring teachers institute, and I know he will take much of what he learns this week back to students at Charles Bloom to enrich their lives further. Would the House please welcome Paul.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

B.C. WILDLIFE FEDERATION

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the House about the B.C. Wildlife Federation. They are great stewards of wildlife and habitat in British Columbia. In British Columbia there are over 30,000 members of this fine organization. On Vancouver Island alone there are 7,000. They defend access rights to our rivers, and on Vancouver Island that's a very important issue, as much of our land is under private managed forest lands management.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation members ran the gates in these lands through their fish and game clubs in Duncan. They managed the Shawnigan Island Timberland sites, and all around the Island it's the same story.

In the early 2000s gates went up, and they were denied access in a wide area. Removal of lands from tree farm licences has taken 500 square miles of land and designated that for possible development.

This is challenging the access of anglers and the B.C. Wildlife Federation members to those lands, and the public generally. The B.C. Wildlife Federation partners with groups like Living Rivers foundation on their work like the fishways in the Little Qualicum River area and the seeding of fish nutrients in the Chemainus River.

To get the economy moving, we should get fishers casting. The saltwater recreational fishery in this province accounts for $700 million in economic activity. The freshwater fishery, almost $400 million. That's a total of almost $1.1 billion in economic activity.

Habitat damage and marine survival are the main issues facing our fish. What can we do in this House? We can protect the habitat, we can effect land use decisions, we can make better logging practices, we can invest in smolt quality and production, we can invest in habitat recovery, and we can make adequate assessments for a sustainable industry.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation. They're partners in securing a sustainable future for our environment and our economy. Let's all of us in this House commit to honouring them and supporting these dedicated British Columbians.

VANCOUVER OPERA AND
SCHOOL PROGRAM

R. Sultan: On April 3 Vancouver Opera will again perform in front of North Shore school children with their production of Jack Pine. Short, twisted and misunderstood, Jack finally receives the recognition he deserves in the forest. "Wood is good" has seldom had such musical support.

I first encountered these professionals at Cleveland School, where their production of The Barber of Barkerville featured our local version of the world's most famous barber, Figaro. Grade 3 and 4 students sat on the floor of the gym, were entranced by the singing, the sets and the plot. During the Q-and-A period, the first question was: how do I become an opera singer? The second was: how do they get that hotel sign to stick on the Velcro for a quick change?

[1345]

Each year Vancouver Opera in Schools visits 150 elementary schools in the province and performs before 50,000 students from North Shore to Nelson. It's all perfectly wonderful.

Intrigued by The Barber of Barkerville, I ventured downtown to see my first taste of a real opera, Carmen — "Deadly passion in Seville." Wow. But watch out for those erotic gypsy dancers. Emboldened, I sampled another, Eugene Onegin — "Impossible romance in Czarist Russia." Wow again. I'm hooked. I can't wait to see Rigoletto — "Treachery in a twisted court" — and the season finale Salome —"Lust and prophecy in Judea."

Under the superb leadership of James Wright and the vigorous musical direction of Jonathan Darlington, each performance of the Vancouver Opera Company should be a sellout and frequently is. So if you enjoy staged his-
[ Page 14035 ]
trionics, passion and guile, skip question period and go to the opera.

CARIBOO CHILCOTIN ELDER COLLEGE

C. Wyse: For more than 50 years I have been involved in schools. I attended grades 1 though 13 in Kamloops, completed my university in Vancouver and taught secondary school in Williams Lake for 35 years.

Many of my friends and colleagues didn't stop there. They are still going to school. My constituents are able to continue their lifelong learning through the Cariboo Chilcotin Elder College — to my understanding, one of two such colleges in the province. Affiliated with Thompson Rivers University, the elder college is open to anyone over the age of 50. Membership dues are a minimal $10 per year, and members are eligible to take a variety of courses during the spring and fall sessions.

Membership in the elder college allows Cariboo residents to use the university's library and bookstore and to participate in many university-sponsored events. Members can also participate in the board of the elder college and volunteer as teachers of the many programs offered during the year. These programs include such topics as Cariboo history, drawing and painting, music appreciation, philosophers' cafe and geology of the Cariboo.

Volunteer instructors share the expertise they have developed during their own professional careers. In addition to these courses offered at nominal fees, a series of community service courses are offered to seniors at no cost.

The "Life Story Workshops" help seniors explore ways to preserve their personal history. "Coping with Chronic Diseases" helps participants explore non-medical ways of coping with conditions that have changed their lives.

The Cariboo Chilcotin Elder College is successful due to the volunteer efforts of many individuals led by the current president, Pat Cullem. Their willingness to donate and devote their time to community ensures that seniors in the Cariboo have an opportunity to continue their education. I ask the House to join me in thanking the volunteers of the elder college for their contribution to the seniors of the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

ROBERT BLOY

H. Bloy: I was going to speak of the great seniors from my riding, but today I'm going to speak about my dad. My dad Robert — or Rob or Bob, as he was called — came to Canada when he was 13 years of age from England in 1927. They stayed in Montreal for about one year, where my dad did some schooling and delivered groceries by bicycle in the Mount Royal area of Montreal.

In his teens the family of six children and my grandmother and grandfather moved to Falconbridge, Ontario, near Sudbury, and my dad and my uncle worked in the mines. For the first two years when they lived in Sudbury, the family of eight lived in a tent. My dad earned his ticket as a stationary engineer, and this started from working on the trains in the mining, stocking the boiler system.

When I was 18 months of age, with my two brothers Randy and Wayne and my sister Debbie, we moved to the Toronto area. My dad worked on many jobs as a stationary engineer for large industrial complexes and office buildings in the city of Toronto. The job my dad did then is now done by a computer chip.

But the job he worked at the longest and enjoyed the most was when he worked for the Etobicoke board of education, where he became the head custodian of the schools and where he retired from.

My mom and dad were always a source of wisdom to all of us. They never tried to stop us. My parents and my dad always encouraged us that we could do whatever we wanted to do in life.

[1350]

My dad was not a man of many words, but if we were on a wayward path, it would just be a few simple words from my dad that would put us back on the right track.

I'm telling you all of this today because the House won't be sitting in May, and in May I would like to have wished my dad a happy 95th birthday. I just wanted, on behalf of my siblings and I, to say how much we love our dad.

economic recovery

D. Cubberley: In troubled economic times the question of leverage is on everyone's mind. Whole sectors are no longer the drivers they once were. Assets taken for granted, once highly leverageable, contract before our eyes.

Such flagging prospects lead to diminished confidence and disappointing performance. When what was once so far up flounders and fails, we're desperate for something to rally resolve and stem the downturn, because waning confidence left unchecked breeds a deflationary spiral.

Faced with asset collapse, restructuring is necessary to reposition effectively for fresh opportunity. We scour the horizon for signs the slump is ending. Yet deep down, we all know intervention is needed. Hope persists that what declined precipitously can rise again and be all that it was and more.

So we search for omens, and we find them in our media, where stories abound of a buoyant reflation and families faced with languishing assets and lazy equity. For families, too, face moments where idled members may not enjoy the easy confidence they once knew, where the stellar performance of youth gives way to the dwindling stock of today, where the formerly reliable has become the barely discernible. Home economists
[ Page 14036 ]
seek ways to reflate these lapsed assets in order to regain their leverage.

The media reveal that they're finding the ways in droves, so much so that we are yet again number one in Canada. I recall Mick Jagger's reminder that while we can't always get what we want, if we try sometimes, we just might find that we can get what we need. That is what this House must do with our economic engine. For if the people are right — and who can doubt it? — it turns out to be a matter of administering the right medicine in the right quantity at just the right moment.

bulkley valley rod and gun club

D. MacKay: I'd like to follow along on the same theme as the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith and talk about wildlife.

On this past Saturday my wife and I, along with 200 other people, went to the Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club for dinner. I've got to explain the ambience of the place where we ate. The whole room has got trophy heads hanging around. There are big moose heads and elk and caribou and grizzly bear and bare lightbulbs. We had tables that were put out for food. It was a fundraiser for the Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club.

I want to explain some of the food that we had for dinner that night, and I'll tell you, it was very well prepared. There is quite a list here, so I'm going to have to read it very quickly, because I know I only have two minutes.

We had sweet and sour moose. We had moose stew. We had moose in gravy, moose in orange sauce. We had sheep cocktail meatballs, mountain goat, saucy apple goose, duck in apricot sauce, goose in peanut sauce, caribou stroganoff, caribou meatballs, caribou stew and dumplings — and they were excellent — curried caribou cubes, venison in gravy, sweet-and-sour venison, sweet-and-sour buffalo, buffalo lasagna, grizzly bear tenderloin in barbecue sauce, grizzly ham.

We had cougar in sauce, cougar pockets, baked salmon, Arctic char burgers, baked white and red salmon, fried salmon, and walleye. That must have been imported. Of course, there was the Chateau Cardboard red and white wine served in plastic glasses. It was a great evening of fine food and a successful fundraiser for the Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club.

[1355]

Oral Questions

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRUST

B. Simpson: Yesterday another 725 forest workers lost their jobs. It's becoming almost impossible to track the daily mill closure announcements and the number of people who have lost their jobs from this sector. Yet in the budget there is not one penny of provincial money being put into the community development trust to assist these forest workers through this very difficult transition — not one penny. However, there is $365 million for a retractable roof over B.C. Place.

My question to the Minister of Community Development is this. How can he sit there and justify the Liberal government's skewed priorities? Not one penny for forest worker community development trust; $365 million for a retractable roof. How is that justifiable?

Hon. K. Krueger: Firstly, I think every member of this House feels a deep empathy for every one of those workers and the colossally bad news that this is to them and to their communities. Certainly, I want to express that on behalf of my colleagues on the government side.

As the member knows, the pulp industry is going through the worst trough that it's ever experienced in British Columbia. Just this morning the member and his colleagues came to talk to me about the community development trust, the allocation in this year's budget for the rural B.C. secretariat and the good things that we have been doing for displaced forest workers throughout the province. So it's somewhat disingenuous to ask the question in that way.

But the member should rest assured, as should the people of those communities and those displaced workers, that the government feels tremendous empathy for them and is working with their communities and will continue to do so to help in every way we can.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: What is disingenuous is for the minister to sit there knowing full well that the community development trust transition closed last August 15. There has been no room for applications since then, and he admitted to us today there would be no additional provincial money put into that trust.

He talks about the trough that the industry is in. In this trough the Premier has added a carbon tax, straight cost to the industry. In this trough the Premier is threatening the viability of this industry with increased hydro rates. In this trough the Premier is threatening a trade war with the U.S., because he keeps saying he's politically interfering with the stumpage system. And in this trough this government has not put a penny to the community development trust for forest workers in transition, but $365 million to a roof over B.C. Place.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. If we truly have empathy for these forest workers, if this government truly has empathy for these forest workers, will you cancel the carbon tax, will you stop the B.C. Hydro rate hikes, and will you put provincial money in to match the federal money in the community development trust?
[ Page 14037 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: This government has cut school taxes to major industrial properties in a very major way. This government has eliminated the corporate capital tax which the NDP government of the '90s saddled all the major industries with. This government has made cuts to industrial taxation to the extent that Catalyst saves $5 million a year.

It's true irony to hear that member talking about the softwood lumber agreement which his leader has repeatedly talked about renegotiating, which means tearing it up. It's irony to hear that member talk about climate action change activities and the carbon tax, when his leader has repeatedly referred to the pulp industry and others as big polluters and expressed her intention to see that they are heavily taxed, as she says, "at source."

And it's very ironic to hear a member from that side….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The member has a further supplemental.

[1400]

B. Simpson: Here's an e-mail from a forest worker's wife:

"We are in the process of missing our second mortgage payment, and many people besides us are on the verge of foreclosure in the next month. My husband is a laid-off forest worker, which will probably be permanent, and we are close to our wit's end.

"With the way the economy is going, people will lose their homes, marriages will collapse, or suicides will begin happening. This government has to begin doing something to improve the services that are being offered to displaced forest workers."

We are hearing this plea from every corner of the province.

My question, again, to the Minister of Finance: instead of putting $365 million to a roof over B.C. Place, will he put that $365 million to make sure these forest workers can keep roofs over their heads?

Hon. K. Krueger: Again, I want to express the sincere empathy and sympathy from every member of this side of the House to the woman who wrote that letter…

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: …who I'm sure doesn't appreciate the heckling coming from the other side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: I take that as a very serious matter that the member just raised and care very much about the woman who wrote it.

I want to mention that amongst our tax relief provisions — and I've mentioned some of the ones to industry — we have recently announced that we are willing to carry the property taxes of anyone in this province who expresses on their own statement that they are suffering financial hardship. That saves people hundreds of dollars a month in many communities. We know that the forest industry is a sunrise industry in British Columbia. We believe in the industry.

When that member's party had a chance at government in the '90s, what did they do for the pulp industry? They put up to half a billion dollars into a defunct old pulp mill in Prince Rupert — Skeena Cellulose. At that time the professor emeritus of the University of B.C. forestry faculty said…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: …there is a problem in Prince Rupert but no justification for transferring the problem to other communities, and that's what that government did.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

I remind the minister that when I say thank you, it's time.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
Vancouver Island FOREST WORKERS

L. Krog: Up and down Vancouver Island are thousands of workers without jobs. Their families, their dependents, are all wondering who's going to make the mortgage payment, who's going to pay for the groceries. What they heard this afternoon from this minister was some empathy. Well, that's not going to do it for those families.

Talk is cheap. So my question is to the Minister of Finance. If this government wants to put some money where its mouth is, if it wants to give some meaning to what we just heard from that minister…. You tell us in this House today, Minister of Finance, exactly what you are going to do for those 350 laid-off workers in Campbell River who have just joined the thousands of other Vancouver Islanders without a job.

Hon. K. Krueger: In the first year of administration of the community development trust, we've received 2,294 applications under the worker transition provisions. Eighty-three percent of them have been approved, with an average payout per worker of $36,813.

We have received 1,538 applications for tuition assistance, and 90 percent of those have been approved. We have received applications under the job opportunities program for dozens of important projects around the province, which have been approved. People are working, and hundreds of people have jobs in the forest sector as a result of that.
[ Page 14038 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Does the minister not understand that when you speak to the people of Campbell River in that way, they look across the water at Vancouver, and they see $365 million to improve and put a roof on a facility at which none of them will ever be able to afford to attend one single Olympic event? Perhaps they could consider giving away some of the free Olympic tickets to those people in Campbell River and maybe put a little joy in their lives.

That's not going to cut it, though. What those people in Campbell River are looking for is a government that shows some leadership on what used to be the most important industry in the province of British Columbia, that put food in the mouths of their families and paid their mortgage payments and sustained their communities.

[1405]

I say to the Minister of Forests: can he stand up in this House, then, since we're not getting any answers, and tell those people in Campbell River today what he's going to do for them?

Hon. K. Krueger: In 2002 one of the two major employers of the North Thompson Valley shut down 180 jobs because of the changes happening in the forest industry. Less than a year later another one burnt down.

I'll tell you what this member did, hon. Member. I rolled up my sleeves. I formed a committee with every elected person in the North Thompson Valley. We went to work. There's full employment in the North Thompson Valley now. We worked with every little community committee and all of the people who had good ideas. We diversified that economy, and it is a totally different picture. That's what every member over there should be doing.

The Whip from that side has made sure that people put in a whole bunch of applications to the job opportunities program, and more power to her. She's had six projects approved. But her colleagues are not doing the same.

That member should be rolling up his sleeves, working with….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, through the Chair, please.

Hon. K. Krueger: I think that member should be working with Catalyst, working with the communities, as I have been doing — I've been meeting with councils — working with the unions, if they're willing, as we did with Highland Valley copper, who kept working throughout the '90s, in spite of that government.

Ask me another question so I can tell you more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: How sad it is for the people of Vancouver Island, of Crofton, of Campbell River, to hear this from this minister. He tells us about the community development trust. There have been thousands of job losses since the August 15 deadline to apply to that trust. Yet that's the answer he has for them today.

Yesterday the Forests Minister stood here and defended the extra costs that his government has loaded onto those companies on the same day that 375 full-time jobs were lost in my community — family-supporting jobs — with 44 percent of the local tax base being lost.

I want that minister to justify to my constituents how his government can justify $365 million for a retractable roof over B.C. Place while he does nothing to improve their lives and help them.

Hon. P. Bell: These are the most challenging times for the forest industry, and the pulp and paper industry is part of that, as well, right now. Yesterday I read some of the comments from the mayor of Campbell River. He said in discussions with Richard Garneau, who is the senior vice-president of Catalyst, that they simply didn't have an order book. They simply couldn't sell the product.

In fact, I talked to Richard just a day before, and he relayed the same thing to me. The workers also understand that.

So this is about bringing people together. This isn't about dividing them. This is about finding constructive solutions.

But that member has got a lot of nerve. He's got a lot of nerve. His leader stands up in the House and says that the NDP want to put a carbon tax on at source for our pulp mills. When you start running the numbers through, it means that the costs to our pulp industry would be exponentially higher than anything else that we've put on in terms of a carbon tax.

This government is the one that's reduced taxes. That previous government is the one that raised taxes.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: The workers of Vancouver Island understand that they are out of work. That's what they know. They know their families can't pay mortgages. They know their communities are going without, and they also know that this minister is unwilling to help them.

On September 16 he said: "We have pretty much reached the bottom." September 23: "The worst is over." November 24: "There's lots of good news out there." November 26: "My crystal ball was a little fuzzy." January 9: $365 million for a retractable roof. And yesterday he stood here and denied that the extra costs — the carbon tax, the increased Hydro rates — are not hurting their jobs.

[1410]
[ Page 14039 ]

They know they're out of work. They know this minister is asleep at the switch. They know this government is doing nothing to help them.

Minister, what will you do today to help those workers and their families?

Mr. Speaker: Remind Members again: through the Chair, please.

Hon. P. Bell: You know, I find it interesting that the member opposite is suggesting that the investment in the new roof at B.C. Place is a bad investment, because his colleague the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke stood in this House on April 10 and said: "Why aren't we moving forward on the new roof for B.C. Place?" So I'm not sure which it is.

But amongst….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: It appears as if I've struck a bit of a sensitive note on the other side. I don't want to in any way underestimate the challenges that this industry is facing. Anyone would have to be blind not to understand that the global economy is impacting our industry in a significant way.

But I want to walk the members opposite through a few numbers: the investment at West Fraser in Quesnel, $105 million; the investment by Interfor at Adams Lake, $100 million; Rivercity Fibre in Kamloops, $5 million; Structurelam, a brand-new plant in Okanagan Falls, another $5 million; Pinnacle Pellet in Strathnaver, $17 million.

I actually have a fairly lengthy list, so I would encourage the members opposite to keep on this track of questioning.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRUST

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Community Development. If you take away all the talk on both sides, we have a worker transition fund which closed August 15, 2008. Every day, regardless of whose fault you think it is, workers lose their jobs.

You have a fund that admits nobody, and every day, workers lose their jobs. My question is really simple and straightforward and doesn't require any rhetoric. What day will we reopen the fund to allow these new laid-off workers to apply?

Hon. K. Krueger: I talked with that member this morning about this very issue, talked with their Forests critic and four other opposition MLAs who wanted to talk about these issues. I asked them what they thought they would do if they were in the same situation as us, if they'd like to take part in making some of these difficult decisions.

The Forests critic wouldn't say. He said: "I don't want to answer that." You may think that that's hedging, and it is hedging. He didn't want to say, because it's tough to decide. Are you going to put your money into creating new jobs for displaced workers, or are you going to continue transitioning more workers to retirement?

These are tough questions. We're working through them. I invited input from those members, and instead they stand up and pretend we didn't talk about it at all.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: I am only standing up….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: It's true. Some of my colleagues here went to see the minister to petition on behalf of their citizens to open up the fund and let the workers in. It's true that the minister said: "Well, I've only got 30 million bucks and there are all kinds of other industries. Where would you spend it?" That's hardly the point.

The point is that we are paving the golden triangle — Whistler to Victoria to Vancouver. We are buying anything we want in the cities.

[1415]

Will the Minister of Finance give this poor minister enough money to actually manage the transition of laid-off forest workers, or do we and all of the people at home assume that you actually want to break this industry, that you actually want the majors to control the land, the independents to be gone, and have the corporations control British Columbia when the market comes back?

I know the government isn't stupid. So there are only two possibilities. There are only two possibilities. He hasn't figured it out yet, and he will now give the minister the money. Or they actually intend to break the forest industry.

Hon. C. Hansen: I find the line of questioning from the opposition to be rather peculiar today. It was only a matter of weeks ago that we heard from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke saying that the new roof on B.C. Place should have been done sooner. Now we hear other members of the same caucus complaining that we're actually putting money into a new roof on B.C. Place Stadium, which is something that is going to have to be done.

I would like to say to those members that…
[ Page 14040 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: …they should go and look at the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The new roof that's going to go on B.C. Place Stadium is something that is absolutely essential. It has to be done. Now is the time in an economic cycle to do it. It's to bring forward some of that capital infrastructure that's going to have to be built anyways.

I can tell you that in this budget there is $14 billion worth of capital expenditure that is budgeted for in this three-year cycle. Those projects are in every corner of this province. So 90 percent of the transportation infrastructure that's been built over the last number of years is outside of the Lower Mainland, and 72 percent of the total cost of transportation infrastructure that's been built over the last number of years is outside of the Lower Mainland.

We will be rolling out projects that will amount to 88,000 jobs, in every corner of British Columbia, to put people back to work and to make sure that workers in every corner can continue to see that kind of support from this government.

FOREST INDUSTRY ISSUES
ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

J. Horgan: Let's take a look at some of the forestry policy wonders that we've had over the past number of years. Two years ago the B.C. Liberals released 28,000 hectares of land on Vancouver Island. Last December the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that downzoning bylaws that had been approved by the CRD, had been approved by the Minister of Community Services, were not in force.

The appeal was launched in January. Yesterday we learned that there's a stay of proceedings, so we're right back where we started from. For two years we've had lost opportunities, we've had lost property rights, we've had lost opportunities for first nations and wilderness areas alienated for development.

My question is a simple one to the Minister of Forests. How's that working out?

Hon. P. Bell: In a very challenging time in the forest industry right now we should be focusing on the future of the industry. There is a bright future for the forest industry. The opposition may deny that, and I have heard them on a number of occasions say that there is no future to forestry, but I'll tell you what this government's focused on.

There are four key priorities. The first thing we need to think about is making sure that we utilize every single piece of that resource and extract maximum value from it. We're doing that across the province already.

The second key thing. Let's start thinking about growing trees — the opportunity in a low-carbon economy is enormous — and investing in incremental silviculture.

The third one. Let's focus on China. I know the Forests critic opposite believes that China will never take more than 10 percent of our total production. The member opposite is dead wrong. We've got a huge market over there. We're going to build a non-residential market that will be the envy of the world.

Our forest policy is looking forward. We've got a bright industry. We're going to make sure it happens.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: That's incredible. That's absolutely incredible. Two years ago the Minister of Forests stood in this place and said that everything was going to be great on southern Vancouver Island. We were going to protect jobs. We were going to restore strength to a failing company.

[1420]

Well, yesterday Western Forest Products announced a $85.6 million loss. There are no jobs on Western Forest Products lands in my constituency. There are no opportunities for first nations. There are no opportunities to build a hut, because there is no planning. There are no rules on the west coast of Vancouver Island because of this government's inane policies.

Again to the Minister of Forests. If two years ago it was a good idea, two years have passed. Nothing positive has happened. What steps will you take today to put the genie back in the bottle, get people back to work and have some coherence on the west coast of Vancouver Island so my constituents will look at this government and say: "You're not the stupidest people I've ever seen"?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I don't want to underestimate the stress that is on families in the forest industry out there. It's huge today.

My riding. Mackenzie has been impacted probably more than any other community in British Columbia, and yet those people are still working hard to make it through and have a bright future.

I think the important thing is to look at the investment record, because that's what it comes down to. When companies are investing, you know that they have confidence in the future.

So let's look at that record: Cowichan Bay, Western Forest Products, $13 million; Nanaimo, Nanaimo Forest Products, $13.2 million; Adams Lake, Interfor, $100 mil-
[ Page 14041 ]
lion; Armstrong, Tolko, $2.8 million; Creekside, Tolko, $8.1 million; Elko, Tembec, $15 million; Kamloops, Rivercity Fibre, $5 million.

I've got pages and pages of investments that have been made as a result of the policy framework that this government has put in place. That means that there is a future for B.C.'s forest industry. This government owns the future. That opposition owns the past.

MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS

C. Wyse: The Pritchard-Chase area lost four meat-processing facilities after this government passed their regressive meat inspection regulations. Now Andy Belo of Dandy Meats in Pritchard is being denied a class C licence despite the fact there is not enough slaughter capacity in that region.

This is a perfect example of how the government's cookie-cutter approach to this is destroying local agriculture. My question: will the Agriculture Minister commit today to fixing his broken meat inspection regulations?

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, we recognized on this side of the House that the transition to the new meat inspection regulations was going to be a difficult one, and that's why we would put in place things like the meat transition assistance program, in order to assist companies like this as they try to move forward to a class A licence.

But it's not easy. We recognize that help needs to be there, and that's why we've provided well over $8 million in funding to support the industry. We will continue to work with them to make sure that this is a viable option for people to transition into this program.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: The Minister of Agriculture does not understand the question that is being proposed. We're not talking about transition. We're talking about the actual acquisition of such a licence in an area where there has been a loss of four slaughter houses in the region.

Let me share with you the words from Andy Belo himself. He says it better than I do. "All we are trying to do is to make a living and keep an agriculture food production chain going. You are doing your best to kill this industry."

My question to the Minister of Agriculture: will the minister stand up in the House today and pledge to work with small producers like Andy Belo to fix his regressive meat inspection regulations?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, first of all, I have to tell the member he's wrong — and about a few things. First of all, he's wrong….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: He's wrong about the purpose engendered in the meat inspection regulations. British Columbia is one of the last provinces to come on board with safety regulations like this around meat inspection. While we recognize that it can be a challenge for the industry — and is in many areas — nevertheless, our highest priority is to ensure that, for British Columbians, they can expect that from the farm to the fork their food is safe, and they have that to count on in British Columbia.

[1425]

The other thing that the member is wrong about is that, in fact, we've improved the situation across B.C. We've actually quadrupled the number of processing plants since this regulation came into place. We're continuing to assist the industry through things like the meat transition assistance program — $8 million and more that those members voted against.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

B. Simpson: I reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction of another group of students.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: We have another group of grade 5 students from Pacific Academy, which is one of the great schools in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. They're here with their teachers, along with 39 volunteer parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Wyse: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Wyse: I'd like to present a petition on behalf of the Pritchard area seeking a class C licence for a slaughterhouse of Dandy Meats, along with letters of support for such a licence to be granted.
[ Page 14042 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report for the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, 2007-2008.

S. Hammell: I'd like leave to…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Hammell: …make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: I'd be remiss if I did not introduce another fine B.C. teacher. Wendy Kaland teaches at Green Timbers Elementary School in the constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers. Would the House please make her welcome to these chambers.

D. Routley: I seek leave to present two petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

D. Routley: The first one is signed by dozens of my constituents petitioning the government axe its gas tax. The second is a petition signed by dozens more of my constituents to roll back massive pay hikes given to public sector administrators.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP OF SELECT STANDING
AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple days ago I made the motion, with leave, to appoint the select standing committee membership. It seems I should have turned to page 2. With leave, I complete the task and move:

[That the following Members comprise the membership of the following Select Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly for the 5th session of the 38th Parliament:

Select Standing Committee on Health
Ralph Sultan (Convener), Dave S. Hayer, Dan Jarvis, John Nuraney, Val Roddick, Katherine Whittred, Adrian Dix, Guy Gentner, David Chudnovsky, Raj Chouhan

Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives
Al Horning (Convener), Harry Bloy, Randy Hawes, Ralph Sultan, Dave S. Hayer, Mike Farnworth, Bob Simpson, Katrine Conroy, Jenny Kwan

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills
Al Horning (Convener), Harry Bloy, Randy Hawes, Dave S. Hayer, Val Roddick, Mike Farnworth, Adrian Dix, Jenny Kwan, Katrine Conroy]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued discussion on the supplementary estimates. I believe we are commencing Tourism.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF TOURISM, CULTURE
AND THE ARTS

The House in Committee of Supply, K. Whittred in the chair.

[1430]

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 42(S): ministry operations, $15,100,000.

S. Herbert: I just wanted to start out on this to acknowledge that it is my first estimates debate. I've never engaged in this practice before, so I would ask that the Chair and the hon. minister give me a little bit of leeway and certainly provide fulsome answers so that I get the best understanding of how the ministry is planning to use this funding and, also, how the ministry is currently operating. That will help me understand, and I certainly think it will help others understand, who are watching at home.

Right now, with the recent budget that came out, there's been a lot of fear, a lot of trepidation in the arts and culture community. People are quite concerned. People are angry, and rightly so. There's a real fear for their future and for the future of arts and culture in this province.

Now, I know the hon. minister is a great lover of the arts. Certainly, we spoke earlier, about a couple of weeks ago, and talked about his family, how they're involved in the arts and his great love of his job as minister. I thought it would be useful to share just a little bit about my background in the arts.

[1435]

I come out of a theatre family, a family who produces, directs and performs theatre productions in Vancouver. I'm a trained actor, director and producer myself. I guess we get a lot of acting going on in this Legislature, but I'll try and keep it on the level, on the message.
[ Page 14043 ]

I've continued in the arts and culture community — producing festivals, working in the dance community producing dance events which have toured the province and toured Canada. I've had the luck of being able to tour internationally with the dance company I was managing.

This is a sector that I know well. It's a sector that I love and that I believe really builds B.C.'s economy, a sector that stimulates a creative economy which certainly punches above its weight in terms of the amount we invest and the amount that's actually produced.

I wanted to start off by asking the minister how the current budget allocation for arts and culture is broken down — the current fiscal year.

Hon. B. Bennett: I agree with most of what the member said. I do think it's fair of me to point out to the member that if he in fact is concerned about the arts and culture community in this province — being anxious, as he just expressed — it would probably be helpful if he would stop sending out letters to the arts and culture community, such as the one I have in my hand, which states: "The Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts has suggested that the provincial government is providing an additional $15.1 million for arts, culture and heritage. This statement is not backed up by the facts."

That's what we're doing here, talking about that $15.1 million. The member can't speak out of both sides of his mouth on this. I'm quite prepared to have a civil discussion about the budget for arts and culture, and also tourism, but the member doesn't need to lecture me about going around and inciting people and scaring people about what's happening in arts and culture. The member, in fact, has done that himself.

With regard to what's happening with the arts and culture budget, as the member, I think, hopefully knows, the base for 2009-10 was reduced but is being supplanted by this supplementary budget.

The $15.1 million will be allocated as follows. So $7 million will go to the B.C. Arts Council, which will give them a little bit more money, in fact, in the fiscal year 2009-10 than they had in the previous fiscal year. The balance of the $15.1 million, which is $8.1 million, will go to the provincial heritage sites for a three-year sustaining budget for them.

S. Herbert: I think we're having some fun with words here. I don't see how $7 million going to arts and culture, which they received currently in this year — they've received for a number of years — and then had taken away by the government in core funding and then given back, is additional funding. It's one-time funding.

I don't think I need to remind the minister of that, although if he wants to hold up e-mails and things, I've got a couple of letters that he sent out and a couple of press releases where it talks about additional funding for the arts and how everybody should be excited and be okay. Well, that's what they got before, so it's a bit rich for him to be lecturing me on inciting fear.

The fear is there because this government has absolutely rejected the idea of a creative economy. We've got — in 2010, 2011 and 2012 — massive cuts to the arts and culture budget, to the tourism budget, which this hon. minister is supposed to protect.

I want to keep this civil. But the facts remain, and I'm going to stick to the facts about what's going on here. The arts and culture communities deserve this. The Tourism Minister needs to step up and be truthful about this as well. I know he will be, because he's an honourable gentleman.

[1440]

So I return to the question that I asked, which I didn't get an answer for. I'd appreciate that answer for the record so that everybody is able to see how the funding breaks down. How is the current budget allocation for arts and culture spent? I'd like that broken down by program, if possible.

Hon. B. Bennett: We're here to discuss the supplementary budget of $15.1 million. I have generally indicated already how that will be allocated. So $8.1 million will go to the provincial heritage sites over three years, and $7 million will go to the B.C. Arts Council for 2009-10.

Hon. Chair, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we're here to do estimates on the main budget for the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. I think we're here to talk about the supplementary budget, which is $15.1 million.

I can tell the member generally that last year the B.C. Arts Council received $13.3 million in addition to $3.8 million that they got from the two funds — the BC150 fund, and there is another fund that provides some interest as well. That was less interest than what was anticipated, of course.

So they received $13.3 million from the province plus the interest from the BC150 fund, which gave them in the order of $17 million and a little more. Going into 2009-10, we estimate that the interest from the funds will be about $3 million. With the $8 million that's in the base budget and the $7 million that's in this supplementary budget that we're discussing today, the budget will actually be a little bit more in the next fiscal than what it is this year.

S. Herbert: I appreciate the minister sharing some of those details. In order for me to feel comfortable about the total amounts, I'd appreciate if we could get more than $3 million and a bit, just because pennies are pennies, dollars are dollars, and it's all taxpayers' money. I'd appreciate it if we could get a fuller answer.

It will help my understanding of the math as well, because sometimes I'm a little thick. I did get an A in
[ Page 14044 ]
math when I was in high school, but I had to work my butt off to get it. So I really appreciate if we can speak about the full numbers.

Now, I guess I wanted to ask about the current budget just so that I understood how the budget breaks down for arts and culture. How much is going to the Arts Council? How much is going to ministry operations? How much of it is going to other programs, which I may not be aware of? I ask that just so that I can get a better understanding, so that I and my colleagues can understand where the needs are and what the other funds are for so that we make sure that the money is being spent in the best way possible for arts and culture.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, for the member's benefit, when I said $3 million for the estimated or forecast interest from the BC150 fund, that's how budgeting works. You forecast what you think you're going to get from a fund like that, but you don't know how much you're going to get in interest until the end of the year. So that's why I said to the member, in very precise terms, that we earned $3.8 million in interest last year, but we were forecasting $3 million. To be very specific about that, it is $3 million that we're forecasting, but it is, nonetheless, a forecast.

As far as the second part of the member's question, I apologize. I didn't hear exactly what it was you were asking for. So if you wouldn't mind just asking me again, I'd appreciate it.

[1445]

S. Herbert: I guess I asked about the forecasting for BC150, because I know there were some press releases and big public events when the BC150 was first announced, where the minister at the time, not this current minister, stated $8 million. It would get us eight million bucks for the B.C. Arts Council, and what a great thing…. I guess I saw some other press releases — $6 million and then $5 million. And now I hear $3.8 million is what it actually brought in.

I turned to the minister's service plan, and it suggests that it will be bringing in $3.35 million over the next three years. That's why I wanted to ask that question — so that I could make sure those figures were the same as what the minister's working from. I understand it is a forecast, but would I be correct in using the figures from the service plan?

Hon. B. Bennett: The $3 million number that I quoted is accurate for the interest that we are forecasting for the BC150 fund, but there is another $350,000 in interest that's earned from the other fund that I mentioned. It's called the arts legacy fund. So that's where you get the total number that the member quoted.

There isn't one in this case, but if the member encounters any variances between the blue book and the service plan, it would be because the service plan is prepared a long time…. Not usually a long time, but a long time given the way the economy was changing over the past few months. So if there are variances, it would just be simply a matter of the blue book was more up to date than the service plan.

S. Herbert: To return to that question that he referenced earlier, I was hoping that I could get a breakdown. How much was spent on office expenses here for the arts and culture department? How much was spent for the B.C. Arts Council and for any other programs that are run out of the Arts and Culture Ministry? Just so that I can get a better idea of what the priorities are of this department and so that I can understand how we're supporting arts and culture as best we can.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a good question, and it's an important question. I think we would agree, the two of us, the member and myself, that we want the vast majority of public funds to go to the artists, to arts and culture, as opposed to administration and other things that may not be core to arts and culture. I'm happy to say that in the case of the $15.1 million that we're discussing here today, that all $15.1 million is going directly to stakeholders for the express purpose of arts, culture and heritage.

So in the case of arts and culture, which is what the member wants to discuss right now, the $7 million is going directly to the B.C. Arts Council. They will adjudicate how that money is spent without any interference from the provincial government, and that will all go out into the communities.

[1450]

S. Herbert: I just wondered whether or not the minister might introduce the staff member that he's talking with, for my understanding but also for everybody else's. I think it's important we acknowledge the staff that we're working with, and I know that the minister agrees with me.

Hon. B. Bennett: In addition to this being the member's first estimates, this is not my first estimates. I was Minister of State for Mining and did an estimates, but I actually forgot a couple of things at the beginning of this one. So my apologies, particularly to my staff.

On my left is Deputy Minister Lorne Brownsey, who has been with the provincial government for a long time and does a great job for the people of B.C. Shauna Brouwer is next to me on my right. Shauna is the ADM both for Community Development and for us, and does a wonderful job. Behind me is Jeremy Long, who works for the ministry and works very closely with the B.C. Arts Council, so that's why Jeremy is here.

S. Herbert: So I'm clear, the $7 million that the minister was speaking about is one-time-only funding. It's just for this budget year.
[ Page 14045 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: The $7 million coming out of this year will be applied, through the B.C. Arts Council, to the fiscal year 2009-10. It is one-time funding.

S. Herbert: Thanks for that answer, Minister, that it's one-time-only funding.

The minister has stated that the budget for the B.C. Arts Council will be slightly higher in this next year because of this one-time-only "before the massive cuts to arts and culture come in 2010, 2011 and 2012" supplementary funding. I like to put that in there, because I think it's important to remember. So this is one-time-only "before the massive cuts to arts and culture come in 2010, 2011 and 2012" supplementary funding.

I'm wondering: how does the minister come to the conclusion that the funding will be higher next year than it was this year?

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me take my best stab at explaining this to the member, and it's not simple. It's not a simple situation of having exactly the same budget in the core budget that we had in the current fiscal year.

[1455]

It's a situation where we didn't think we would have the money next year but have it this year. We wanted to move enough forward into the next fiscal year to keep the B.C. Arts Council in the same sustainable position that they have been in for a number of years now. They've been in a very solid position here in the last several years.

If the member refers to the base budget, he'll see an $8 million figure there. You add the forecast interest of $3 million and then add the $7 million, and you're in and around $18 million, which as I have been saying publicly and I think have said here already, is modestly more in total than what they received in fiscal year 2008-09.

S. Herbert: So just for my recollection, the budget for 2008-2009 for the B.C. Arts Council was…?

Hon. B. Bennett: The grants budget for the B.C. Arts Council in 2008-09 was $13.3 million plus the $3.8 million of interest earned on the two funds, which totals $17.1 million.

S. Herbert: Maybe you can help me understand the math. The Georgia Straight newspaper was reporting that the slight increase was actually a decrease of $645,000. I tried to find out where they got that math, and maybe the minister would be able to show me where, because I couldn't see it. Maybe they could explain where they might have figured that figure out.

Hon. B. Bennett: I have no idea where the Georgia Straight gets any of its information.

S. Herbert: I'm curious, and I think many artists are. I'm certainly hearing from artists ranging from the minister's own constituency to the north to Vancouver Island, the north Island, small little islands, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Vancouver, Victoria, Burnaby, Kamloops. I'm getting requests from all over the province. They're very curious. If the minister might be able to explain how this supplementary one-time-only "before the massive cuts to arts and culture come in 2010, 2011 and 2012" funding to the B.C. Arts Council budget would be awarded.

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer to the member's question is that $6.7 million of the $7 million will go to the B.C. Arts Council as accelerated funding for the fiscal year 2009-10 and will be used for operating budgets. To give the member an example, I suppose, the kinds of annual funding that the Vancouver Symphony would receive, but many, many other groups. That $6.7 million covers groups from all over the province.

[1500]

As I have been saying publicly, to have an assured budget for arts and culture in 2009-10 for these 253 groups that receive funding from the B.C. Arts Council, given the economic times, is a very, very positive thing. It's something that I'm actually personally proud of, and I'm proud of our government's ability to be able to provide this assured funding to so many arts and culture groups around the province for this next fiscal year. It could have been different, and I'm happy to say that it actually will be stable going forward into the next fiscal year.

Oh, and there was the rest of the $7 million. I talked about the $6.7 million, but $300,000 is also going to the B.C. Arts Council. It's going to be used by them for a program that they call unique opportunities, which will also add to the longer-term sustainability of arts and culture in the province.

S. Herbert: I appreciate the minister's excitement and gladness that we had this one-time-only operating funding going to the B.C. Arts Council before the massive cuts come in 2010, 2011 and 2012. I'm glad that the groups got it, but I gotta say that I'm really upset at this government. I'm really upset on behalf of artists, arts lovers, our communities.

I'm also upset because I thought this government understood that we need to be supporting our creative economy, that we need to be investing in the arts because they pay out better than we invest. A B.C. Arts Council study showed that for every dollar you invest, the government gets $1.36 back in taxes. It's right there on the website.

I don't understand why this government feels the need to cut, to slash, to destroy the great future that we've been building for arts and culture in this province
[ Page 14046 ]
over the last 20 years. It takes us back — back to the last century, back to when I was in high school, back to when I was in elementary school, really.

Yes, I'm a young man, but I understand the need to support the arts. I understand that it builds our communities. I understand that it provides jobs. So I'm upset. I'm very upset and concerned about the future for arts and culture in this province.

I return to the question about funding, because yes, this year the groups are funded. It gets us through the election. After that, the axe falls, so I'm concerned. I'd like to ask the minister if he's able to explain to me, how this core funding is going to groups, accelerated. What kind of process is that going to be?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm informed that the B.C. Arts Council will meet next week. They are allowed, under their own policy, to fund 60 percent operating grants for the next fiscal year. So they will decide on those operating grants, or 60 percent of each of the operating grants, next week. That's how the dispersal of that portion of the funds will go.

The member expresses some — I'm not sure what word he used — anger, I think, about arts and culture funding in the province. If you take a look at what has been done with the arts and culture community in this province over the past six or seven years…. Actually, I'm quite proud of the record that we have.

The hon. member wasn't with us one year ago, but just one year ago we were here doing a supplementary estimate for $150 million for arts and culture. That will be there forever. That will be there forever for the arts and culture community in the province. Yes, the interest rate might be down a little bit today, but it will be back up again, and as I say, it will fund great initiatives in this province for many, many years to come.

[1505]

Over the last seven years the B.C. Arts Council has distributed over $93½ million into arts and culture in this province. This government has committed to $50 million for a new Vancouver art gallery. That's a pretty substantial commitment. We have committed $9 million to the Vancouver East Cultural Centre.

We have the best film and TV production climate, I think, in North America. We're the third-largest film and TV production centre. We just improved our tax policy to try and attract more film and TV investment in this province, more jobs. We have a line on a company from California that has its eye on Vancouver and that told us if we were able to change one element of our tax policy, they would look very favourably upon locating their new production facility in Vancouver.

The Finance Minister and government were kind enough to make those changes, and now we hope that that company will, in fact, locate in Vancouver.

The member, I'm sure, is aware that we have the Juno Awards coming up. The province has invested $650,000 into the Juno Awards in the member's hometown of Vancouver, and $600,000 to B.C. Scene in the nation's capital, illustrating to the whole country how vibrant our arts and culture scene is here in B.C.

This morning I had the pleasure of having a conversation with the chairman of the board and the executive director for the Vancouver Symphony. They were thanking the provincial government for the $250,000 that we gave.

It's an investment. It's not just a matter of giving the money. We invested in the Vancouver Symphony so that they could travel to Asia and so that they could be the first Canadian symphony to ever perform in Beijing, China. They were telling me that when they performed in Beijing, they had six standing ovations after one concert. They did so well. They made us proud.

This government has proven its commitment to arts and culture in this province. I don't think that we need to be defensive or take a back seat to anybody in terms of the commitment that we have made.

S. Herbert: Absolutely, I understand where the minister is coming from. He's proud of the last seven years, but as a government, we should also be proud of the future years, of what we do for the future. We should be excited about what we do for arts in the future.

Now I know that ever since I've come into the House, the minister, other members from the other side of the House, like to talk about the past. They talk about the '90s. They talk about how great they are, but I've got a long future ahead of myself in this province, as does the minister across from me. I'd like to know why we're not investing in the future of our arts and culture industry.

That's upsetting for me. I know we've got the Junos coming here. We've got 2010. I know the member talked about B.C. Scene in Ottawa. An artist that I worked with, a number of artists that I've worked with will be there. I'm happy to say that. But I'm wondering if B.C. Scene will be B.C. seen — as in, we saw B.C.'s arts, and now it's gone after 2010.

Because with the massive cuts this minister is bringing in for arts and culture in this province, there won't be much of an industry. It'll be like seeing a play, but you only get to see half of it. Singing a song, but you can only sing half of it. Going to the opera, but it's already over when you arrive because they couldn't afford to put it on.

An Hon. Member: Negative.

S. Herbert: I hear the member opposite saying "negative." That's what this future is that's coming to B.C.'s arts community. This government's policy is negative and destructive.

Hon. P. Bell: And pessimistic.
[ Page 14047 ]

S. Herbert: I hear the Minister of Forests say "pessimistic" and laugh about it. It's not funny, what you're doing to the Arts and Culture Ministry.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Member.

[1510]

S. Herbert: Now, I've got an interest in what happens in 2010, 2011, 2012, because I'm going to continue to be involved in arts and culture. I hear from people. I hear from arts administrators. I hear from painters. I hear from book publishers. But mostly it's the performance and visual arts community that are concerned that the future for them is not bright, that we've got a big party in February and after that, kaput.

I hear from people who remember Expo. Expo brought a lot of great, great things to our province, but for the arts and culture community it was pretty difficult. For many in the arts and culture community it was very difficult. They couldn't perform because there was nobody to go to the shows, and that hurts a company, especially a small company.

I've worked in small organizations where you've got one staff and everybody else volunteers. Board members — volunteers.

Across the province there are many organizations' volunteers, people just doing it for the love of it. They might get a small, small little grant from the B.C. Arts Council. That puts them through for the whole year, because they're fundraising, they're working, and they're trying to pull together so they can bring arts and culture to their communities and provide something for others to come and join them, to come to see what their communities have to offer. That's what the creative economy is about.

That's what brings jobs. That's what brings investment. To talk about yesterday, to talk about last year, to talk about the last seven years…. You know, I think there have been good things that have gone on for the arts in this province. There've been great things that have gone on for arts in this province, but we're still near the back of the pack nationally in terms of supporting our arts. And with these cuts coming, we'll go right to the back of the pack.

That's wrong. That's not going to build our future. That's not going to build our economy. That's going to put us in reverse. I remember the party opposite liked to talk about the truck reversing. "Oh don't worry. Be afraid of the NDP but not us, not us." Well, it's that party on the other side that has put us in reverse in terms of support for the arts and culture, and that's despicable.

Now, I return to the question of core funding for arts and cultural organizations. The minister might be able to help me understand. So groups now that are not on core funding but want to be on core funding — for example, they've been surviving on project-based support for years — are they able to get on to that core funding, possibly, if they make a good argument, or is it just for current clients?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the reason that the B.C. Arts Council was set up was to make sure that the answer to that last question is answered by those who know the artists, who know the arts and culture community. Those decisions are adjudicated by people who are in the field. They're not adjudicated by politicians — or even by public servants, necessarily. There is an appointed board that runs the B.C. Arts Council, and they'll make those decisions. I certainly would encourage any group or individual to apply to the B.C. Arts Council. They will either receive funds or not, on the merit of what they're proposing.

I do want to correct one thing that the member said. The member said that we're at the bottom of the pack here in British Columbia. We are not. We're actually doing very well here in British Columbia. If you want to look just at one thing and play that game, I guess you can argue that we're lower than some other provinces.

But if you take the total of what we have actually invested in arts and culture.... If you take BC150, the $150 million that was put in last year; the $50 million that was put into the B.C. art gallery; the $9 million that was put into the Vancouver East initiative; the almost $20 million — I believe it's in the order of $18 million to $20 million — a year that goes into arts and culture from B.C. Lotteries; the arts legacy fund, which was $20 million that was created; and the $25 million that went into the arts renaissance fund, British Columbia has invested an enormous amount of money into arts and culture.

To say that we are somehow or other trailing other provinces, when you look at the size of the investment, is just absolutely wrong.

[1515]

S. Herbert: Well, I'm glad that the minister agreed with the rest of my statement and only had one small, niggling problem with where we place in terms of Canada. I guess he understands that there's devastation coming to the arts, and it's unfortunate that there was no response to that statement. There really, I guess, can't be any response to that statement, because it's so disappointing.

According to this — here it's Statistics Canada, 2005-2006 — they said "second last." Now, I know the minister has been saying that there've been these additional investments. What I was speaking about was what's coming up in 2010, 2011 and 2012, because that's where we're heading.

There are other communities across the country and across the world that are understanding in this economic
[ Page 14048 ]
downturn that investing in the arts is good practice, that it actually makes sense, because the investment pays out so much more than we see in many other investments when you're trying to do economic stimulus. I think it's interesting that the minister didn't have a response to that area there.

I ask the question about the B.C. Arts Council and the core funding, because for many years, even with these small increases over time, groups that need to get on core funding — they've been on project funding for ten years, for many more years — can't, because there simply is not enough support in this province for those groups.

I understand that the B.C. Arts Council is a group that relies on peers to do the funding, and I think that's as it should be. I guess my concern was about that, and maybe it would be possible if Mr. Long might be able to give some indication for the groups that are concerned about this. I'm not sure if he's able to do that in this room or outside, but it certainly would help assuage my fears and also the community's fears.

Hon. B. Bennett: All 253 organizations will receive funding, as they did last year. I'm sorry if the member thinks that I failed to answer all of the different questions that were embedded a couple of questions ago. The member's questions are somewhat long-winded, and it's hard to keep track of how many questions, actually, he asks at one time. Let me do my best to answer the question that the member reminded me I apparently didn't answer, and that is about the future of arts and culture funding in the province of British Columbia.

That, in fact, is what we're doing here today. We're talking about the future of arts and culture funding in the province. That is why I'm surprised, frankly, that the member isn't happier for the people who he knows in Vancouver who are in the arts and culture community who will have stable funding going forward into the future. I think it's actually quite an accomplishment for this government to be able to do that, given what's happening in the economy.

In fact stability, a sustainable budget for arts and culture going into the next fiscal year, I would suggest to the member is a very, very positive thing.

S. Herbert: I agree that the groups this year getting funding is a very exciting thing, and I'm very proud of that. I'm very proud that this minister was able to get that out of his Finance Minister and out of the Premier.

But the question that I've been speaking about, which I guess there is no response to from the minister, is about the future beyond this year. This is one short year. It's a year. I'm talking about 2010-2011, 2011-2012, where the very own service plan of this minister shows massive cuts to the arts and culture, massive cuts which cannot be papered over by statements about what a great year 2009 will be.

[1520]

People rely on this funding. Artists and arts organizations do not plan for just a year. Many, whether it's the Canada Council for the Arts, whether it's foundations, whether it's the B.C. Arts Council, want to know what you're doing next year, because it shows a trajectory — where you're going, how you're funding your artists, how you're building.

I guess the concern with this accelerated, short-term, one-time-only "supplementary before the massive cuts come in 2010-2011-2012" funding…. They're concerned about where that funding is going. Sometimes artists have a bigger year because they've got a bigger production. Sometimes they have a smaller year because their lead artist is going on sabbatical. So they're wondering how this funding is going to be spent.

Is it just going to be the same amount sent out as they got last year? I guess what I understand from the minister is that groups that should be getting on core funding this year really have no opportunity to because of this situation. Is that correct, or is that incorrect? I hope it's incorrect.

Hon. B. Bennett: We are going a little bit in circles here. I think the member doesn't maybe get how a supplementary budget works.

I have said, and I'll say it again for the member's benefit, that the funding that is included in this supplementary budget will give arts and culture — the B.C. Arts Council specifically — the same amount, even a little more, this next fiscal year than they had in this current fiscal year. So there is no reason for the member to suggest that funding that has taken place in the past is somehow or other in jeopardy in this next fiscal year. It is not in jeopardy. This is assured funding during very, very challenging times. I hope that will satisfy the member, but if not, I'm sure he'll ask me another question.

S. Herbert: That's a very, very interesting statement, "Don't worry; everything's fine," and trying to change the question that I asked you.

I was speaking about 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. If there's no worry, I don't understand why people are concerned. You look at the minister's own service plan signed under his name, and it shows massive cuts coming — massive cuts coming. So if there's some sort of thing that I don't understand, that the service plan is wrong, that when it gets cut 45 percent it gets replaced with magic money in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012…. Maybe I need to go back to school, but reading the minister's own plan, that's what it states.

Now, if I'm wrong about that, if the minister can assure me that in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 we're fine, then I would be happy to hear that. Maybe the minister
[ Page 14049 ]
will state that in his next answer in response to my question about this one-time-only "before the massive cuts come to the arts and culture budget in the 2010, 2011, 2012" supplementary funding.

I guess I wanted to ask, for the security of people who work in this industry and actually have to plan more than one year in advance, some questions about certain programs on which it's possible the minister might be able to share some information, get some advice from Mr. Long about how that works. This is an industry that can't afford to just say that we're going to keep our blinkers on for anything that happens beyond 2010. I know the minister wouldn't advise any business to operate that way, so I don't understand why he seems to think it's okay for the arts and culture industry to work that way.

These guys are businesses. They work as arts administrators, masters in business administration. These are people who know what they're doing. They want security for the future, and this $7 million doesn't give them security for the future. It puts off death's door one more year. Many of these organizations are hanging on by their fingernails already. Endowment funds have evaporated.

[1525]

I know the minister said: "Well, there's been a slight reduction." Well, to go from eight million bucks to three million bucks…. That's a pretty massive dry up, a pretty massive evaporation. I'm going by the ministry's own press releases, unless they don't believe their press releases and it's just political spin.

The question that I've got for the minister now is: I'm wondering if he can assure book publishers that under the B.C. Arts Council, there will be the one-time supplementary block funding for book publishers.

Hon. B. Bennett: As I've stated to the member previously, I don't make the decisions about the funding that goes through the B.C. Arts Council. That's adjudicated by them. Having said that, I am informed that book publishing will, in fact, receive the same level of support as it always receives. So the member can perhaps relax a bit on that one.

I do understand, for the member's benefit, that people in arts and culture are often small business people. The reason I understand that is because my brother is a symphony and opera conductor and my sister owns and operates a musical theatre with her pianist husband and has been doing so for many, many years. I know how hard they work and how much they struggle. I truly understand where the term "struggling artist" comes from.

I appreciate what the member is saying with regard to the need for the community to know as far as is possible what's going to be available for public funds going forward. Let me say to the member again that I think it is very positive that we have this sustaining funding for the next fiscal year, given the economic circumstances.

I think the member is correct to point out — and certainly, I anticipated that he would point out — that in the out-years of the three-year budget cycle, the picture is not as rosy. We have not yet been able to commit to keeping that budget at the same level that it has been at the past few years and will be going forward.

I hope this will make the member feel better. I was able to find the funding, which we're dealing with here today in this supplementary budget, to provide that sustaining budget going forward. I'm quite hopeful that we'll find it again in the out-years. We've got 13 months to do that. I certainly give him and the arts and culture community my personal commitment that that will be job number one for me over the next 13 months.

S. Herbert: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. That was really helpful, I think, for the book publishing industry. I guess the next question I had was: what about annual assistance for professional dance organizations?

Hon. B. Bennett: I apologize to the member. I didn't catch that question. If he could ask that again, I'd appreciate it.

S. Herbert: Thank you, Minister. It's a question that I ask….

The Chair: Member.

S. Herbert: Yes?

The Chair: It's "thank you, Chair."

S. Herbert: Thank you, Chair. I'm getting to know this place, and I appreciate the assistance. I like to be told what to do now and then, since we tell so many other people what to do all the time as politicians. It's appreciated, getting that direction from you.

[1530]

I guess the question is about dance. It's the sector I actually came out of to this job. When I was running, I got the call about a by-election sitting at my desk at the dance organization, plunking numbers into a budget, trying to do a multi-year plan. It's kind of funny that I'm here asking these questions today, because of the struggles that our organization was going through.

I'd like to ask about the program for annual assistance for professional dance organizations. Should they have the same security that the minister and the B.C. Arts Council have given to book publishers?

Hon. B. Bennett: I believe that there is comfort for the member in that, once again, we have this supplementary funding that the B.C. Arts Council will have
[ Page 14050 ]
access to and that they can use to provide at least up to 60 percent of operating budgets for dance groups. I can't guarantee the member that the B.C. Arts Council will provide funding to every single dance troupe that applies. That's up to them. But certainly the same level of funding that's been there in the past will be there again for the B.C. Arts Council to work with.

S. Herbert: That's good to know that for this one year only dance organizations will be secure, because I think a lot of them were concerned for this year. Now they're just concerned for 2010-2011, 2011-2012.

I'm not sure what to tell them in terms of the budgeting process when they apply. I guess they can apply, but it seems a little interesting that they'll apply knowing that according to the service plan for Arts and Culture, most of the money won't be there.

I turn now to arts festivals and whether they've got that same assurance.

Hon. B. Bennett: The same answer for festivals as for dance and for book publishing. As I have said, the money from the supplementary budget is available to the B.C. Arts Council for them to pay out up to 60 percent of operating grants for the stakeholders that the B.C. Arts Council normally deals with, and that includes festivals as well as the other two groups that the member has mentioned.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I'm hoping that the member is aware of an announcement that we made today — I think today or yesterday — that 267 grants were made to 90 different communities in the province from this year's budget. A total of $6.2 million is being invested in arts and culture in the province. I won't bore the member or the House with the recitation of all of those 267 grants.

But the member, because he is from Vancouver, might be interested to know that in Vancouver $5,000 went to Tyee Bridge for creative writing. Gloria Chang was given $5,000 today, also for creative writing. Also for creative writing, there was $4,500 that went to Kim Wang Chong, $4,500 to Mark James Cochrane and $10,000 to Ivan Coyote. And Trina Davies was given $3,500 for creative writing.

There's quite a list here in Vancouver just under creative writing, not even getting into any of the other categories. There was a Mr. Gatchalian, first name Christopher, $5,000; Mr. Grubisik, $5,000; Cori Howard, $5,000; Michael James Kissinger, $5,000; Miss Kwa, $10,000, creative writing; Donato Mancini, $5,000, creative writing; Daphne Marlatt, $8,000, creative writing; and on and on it goes.

I'd be glad to read out the names of these folks from Vancouver for the member's benefit. Many of them may well be his constituents, but a very positive announcement. Again, $6.2 million being invested by this government in arts and culture in this current fiscal year.

[1535]

S. Herbert: I'm really glad that the minister shared some of those names. Indeed, some of those are constituents of mine, and some of them actually are friends of mine. So it's nice to hear their names mentioned in this chamber.

I think the question is, of course…. It's great for today. It's great that we're talking about supplementary funding this year. Of course, the concern, as I've said again and again, is the following two years. I'm glad that the minister has stated that he will fight for the funding.

I do like to point to a statement by the Premier, where the Premier said: "No, this is the budget. It's going to stay this way for the next three years." So that's the Premier. That's the minister. We'll see how that goes.

Maybe there will be a change. Maybe there will be a different minister and a different Premier coming up soon.

Interjection.

S. Herbert: Maybe the minister will be the Premier, although I'm not sure if he's interested in that. But I thank the member for Nelson-Creston for that suggestion.

I'll give a bit of a list here so that we can hear a response from the minister about some other programs within the B.C. Arts Council. I'm hoping that we might have the assurance of the B.C. Arts Council that arts training with organizations like the Comox Valley Youth Music Centre society, and on behalf of the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Powell River Academy of Music….

I'm hoping organizations like that, arts organizations that do training — of course, I'm not stating those organizations because that's up to the B.C. Arts Council, and who knows who they'll choose to fund this time — may be assured that they will be able to apply for the same amount of funding this next year. Although, we know, of course, that it will be much tougher the following two years.

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer to this question is the same as the answers to his other questions. There will be the same amount of money. In fact, a modest amount more, actually — in the order of, I think, between $800,000 and $900,000 more — is being provided to the B.C. Arts Council so that any of the groups who have typically applied to the B.C. Arts Council and have been successful, or even unsuccessful, will be able to go back to the B.C. Arts Council and apply again and have the same chance of being successful that they've always had.

Again, these matters are adjudicated by the Arts Council and not by us, but no one's opportunity in the
[ Page 14051 ]
arts and culture community has been diminished. I think that's really the bottom line. I think that if I were in the arts and culture community…. But for the grace of God, I could have been there. I ended up here instead, but if I were there…. I ended up here, and there is some theatre to this job. I understand that I'm not particularly good at that.

In any case, I think that what artists and people in the arts and culture community really care about is whether they have the same opportunity going forward that they've had in the past, and they do. That's the great story about this supplementary budget here today. They do. They have the same opportunity.

All of the groups that the member is raising…. You know, I applaud the member for raising those specific groups. I think that because of some of the things that the member and others have said, there is a lot of anxiety out there in the arts and culture community.

So I think it's a good thing that he gets some of this on the record — that yes, in fact, these groups in the arts and culture community will have the same opportunity to apply, with the same chances of success that they've had over the past several years.

S. Herbert: I caught one question based on the minister's statement. He stated that it was $28,000 or $29,000 more. I'm not sure if that was the figure.

[1540]

Could I get some clarity on how much more will be in the B.C. Arts Council budget this year? It may be more than that. I just couldn't hear what the minister said.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I think we went through this earlier. The number that I just gave to the member was a range. What I said was "between $800,000 and $900,000." I'm informed that the actual number is $843,000 more that the B.C. Arts Council will have to use in this next fiscal year.

Again, perhaps to assist the member in getting this framed up so that he can provide this good news to his constituents and stakeholders in the arts and culture community, in 2008-09 the B.C. Arts Council budget was $13.3 million, plus the $3.8 million that was generated by the two funds.

Just as an aside to the interest earned on the two funds, I think that the member is looking at last year's budget and using the $8 million–plus number that was forecast for interest and, because that interest wasn't earned, is characterizing that as a cut. That's not a cut. That was interest that wasn't earned.

The arts and culture community, the B.C. Arts Council…. No one anticipated, once we saw what was happening with the economy, that that $8 million forecast interest amount was ever going to be achieved. They knew that they would only get what was actually earned, which was in the order of $3.8 million. I'm informed that what was earned was about $4 million less than what was forecast.

When you take what was actually earned last year — that was $3.8 million — and you add it to the $13.3 million that came directly from the province to the B.C. Arts Council, you come up with $17.1 million.

Going forward, in the next fiscal year you start with the $8 million that's in the blue book for the core budget. You add the forecast interest amount, which is $3 million, and you add the $7 million, and — I have to tell the member; this is a little bit rough numbers — you get $18 million. It isn't quite $18 million. It's more like $843,000 more. That's where we come up with the number.

S. Herbert: I appreciate that you're doing the math quite publicly. I understand that they're a little rough numbers. Even still, with the endowment funding, it could be up; it could be down. We shall see. And I understand that the projection is $3 million.

The reason that I discussed the earlier suggestion of $8 million is because it was much ballyhooed at the time. It was front page in the arts section — people talking about how this $8 million was what they were bringing to the arts and culture community. I didn't hear, at the time, minister or ministry or other MLAs suggest: "Well, it could be $8 million, but it could also be $3 million." Instead, they focused on the $8 million.

So just using the numbers that the other side liked to discuss at that time…. I think that when you start promoting an idea, you've got to be accountable for that idea, and that's why I mentioned that figure.

[1545]

I do understand that it didn't pay out as it was predicted, and probably won't pay out next year or the following year as it was previously predicted, which is why I think it's a bit rich that there's discussion that there will somehow magically be the funding next year or the following year — certainly with the economic indicators we've seen and also the suggestion in the budget that the government still had not found $250 million that they're looking to cut.

With that being understood and with the understanding that economists today are talking about the figures being too rosy in this year's budget and that they're not quite sure if the government will be able to make that budget…. Some are certainly expecting there to be a downgrading and a budget in the fall. I've certainly heard the Minister of Finance discussing that there will have to be another budget, because the figures will have so drastically changed.

I've got a number of other questions around organizations, just to get some security for them. I appreciate the minister has stated that he's interested in providing that security for organizations. He has, I think, used the word "sustainability" so that they have the idea of sustainable funding. I don't agree that one-year funding is
[ Page 14052 ]
sustainable funding. It's a one-year commitment. After that, based on the forecast, it will certainly not be there. About 45 to 50 percent of that funding won't be there. I'm quite concerned about that.

For those organizations, so that they would know that they have one-time-only supplementary funding before the massive cuts come…. I'll give you a bit of a list of a couple of groups so that you can answer me, and I won't belabour it too much.

I'm asking about general support for organizations like the Centre for Sustainability, literary support for organizations like Projectile Publishing and project support for media arts organizations like the Vancouver Asian Film Festival Society, Indigenous Arts Service Organization or CineVic Society of Independent Filmmakers.

I just use these as examples, because they have received funding from the B.C. Arts Council in the past. I want to make sure they've got the ability to apply for funding this year. Although I know they may have the ability to apply the following year, they just will have a much less likelihood of support, based on the minister's stated service plan.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the answer is still the same. It hasn't changed. Groups that have been successful in the past will have the same opportunity that they've had in the past to be successful or otherwise. Not everyone who applies to the B.C. Arts Council is successful. I hope the member's not asking me to state publicly that some favoured organization in his riding is going to get funding, because I can't do that, and the member clearly knows that. But again, they will have the same opportunity they've always had.

I do want to respond to the member's comment that government should have known that the BC150 fund wouldn't pay as high a rate of interest — wouldn't pay out the $8 million that was forecast.

The member hasn't been around here as long as I have been. I can tell the member that when I first came into this place in 2001, this province was in pretty sad shape. We had a structural deficit in this province in the multi-billion dollars.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: The members on the other side don't understand what a structural deficit is. It's not that complicated, but they tend not to be business people. They tend not to have dealt in the economy all that much, so it's perhaps understandable that they don't get it.

[1550]

A structural deficit, essentially, is a term that applies to a budget that has more expenditure commitments than it does forecast revenues. When we took over government in 2001, that's the situation that we faced. We had an independent team of people look at all of the programming promises that had been made by the previous government, and they had actually set up a budget where the programming commitments that were made were considerably more than the revenue that they anticipated taking in. So for the member's benefit, that's what a structural deficit is.

When we came into this place eight years ago, we made a commitment in writing — in our platform document, actually — that we would balance the provincial budget by the end of our third full year. We did that and have, of course, balanced budgets ever since then.

We have been criticized by the opposition for the way that we forecast. It's a bit inconsistent of them now to say that we forecast too much for the BC150 fund, because we've been criticized by the opposition for forecasting too much in the past.

Our forecasting actually has saved this province from the sort of situation that Alberta is becoming familiar with, where they're facing a deficit situation in excess of a billion dollars. It saved us from the scenario that Ontario is facing, where they have a deficit in the order of, I understand, more than $10 billion.

We were very conservative in the way that we forecast. We wanted to make sure that at the end of the year we actually had some money left over so that we could balance the budget, which we did in subsequent years.

If the member really believes that there was anyone around who knew what the interest rates were going to go to back when the budget was done…. And typically, they're worked on in the fall of the previous year and put to bed, I think, sometime in January. So that would have been January of 2008 that it went to bed.

If the member really thinks that anyone could have forecast that interest rates were going to go down and that the economy was going to fall apart to the point where we wouldn't earn as much on the BC150 fund, I would suggest to the member that whoever was that smart should have a lot of cash in his pocket today and should be very, very wealthy. There weren't too many people around who were forecasting the kind of economic decline that we had.

With that, hon. Chair, we'll get ready for the member's next question.

S. Herbert: Well, I guess I should get used to it. I've certainly been patronized many times in my life and condescended to, but if the minister was listening to my comments, I never said that he should have predicted that. I never said that the government should have predicted the fall. What I said…. It's right there in Hansard. It's right there. People saw it at home. So I would have hoped that the minister would choose not to mischaracterize my remarks to score cheap political points, but unfortunately, that's what happened.

What I said was that if a government wants to go out and say, "Look, this endowment is going to make
[ Page 14053 ]
eight million bucks. Aren't we the best things around?" that they should at least acknowledge…. If he chooses to criticize me for saying that the budget is much less now, they should at least acknowledge that that's just a forecast.

Of course, the government of the day did not suggest it was a forecast. They said: "Look what you'll get; it's magic. We're going to do this for you." So if he wants to claim that I said, "Oh, they should have been able to predict it," read Hansard. Take notes.

If he's going to tell me about concerns about balancing budgets…. Arts organizations have to do that every single year with very little funding, very little support. So they know about how to balance budgets.

We had very little support and had a big challenge in the arts organization I recently was working with, but we managed to balance the budget and come out in surplus. If he wants to go back to the early days of this administration, he can do that. But I'm talking about today. I'm talking about the future for arts and culture in this province.

[1555]

To talk about 2001 may be interesting for the minister, but it doesn't discuss where we're going today, where his own government, the so-called deficit slayers, are in deficit. It happens. We understand that it happens, and then we see this government having to change their own laws so that they don't break the law because they are not able to balance their budget.

So arts organizations do know about balanced budgets, Minister. Unfortunately, with the cuts that you've put in….

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

S. Herbert: Sorry, Madam Chair.

Arts organizations do know about balanced budgets, but what they don't know is what happens in 2010, 2011, 2012, when the budget gets slashed for the B.C. Arts Council, which will make it very difficult for them to balance their budgets and very difficult for them to offer programs.

I would hope that we could stay on point here. I asked a question; I never got an answer. So I'll ask it again. I was curious about organizations getting support, and the minister started to suggest that I was currying favour, trying to get support for organizations in my own area. Well, that's ridiculous. That's ridiculous.

If he thinks that I'm stupid, if he thinks that I'm trying to somehow magically curry favour with the government for funding, which comes from the B.C. Arts Council independently, he doesn't understand the process.

I think it goes to character. If he wants to try character assassination in this House…. Have the respect of your fellow members.

We're here on a difficult day. We're having a difficult day here because of what's coming up for the future of arts and culture in this province, and that's why I'm concerned.

Hon. S. Bond: Respect is two ways.

S. Herbert: I hear the Minister of Education saying that respect is two ways. I absolutely agree, and I'm speaking about this budget, which is coming up.

Interjection.

S. Herbert: I'm speaking about the minister's comments, where he tried to mischaracterize my remarks about currying favour for local arts organizations, when anybody can read the record and see that that's not the truth.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order.

S. Herbert: I'm curious if the minister would be able to speak about possibly making sure the organizations will know that they're able to get support, or that they'll be able to apply for support, because the minister has made that very clear, as he should — because it's about applications, everybody getting equal opportunity to apply.

I'm asking about support for museums that receive project support, museums like the Port Moody Heritage Society, the Alberni Valley Museum or the Oliver and District Heritage Society. I'm also asking about projects for support for music organizations like Musica Intima, The Western Front Society or Lan Tung with the Orchid Ensemble.

Are those programs still going to be available with this supplementary funding?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the same answer. Museums will have the same opportunity that the other groups mentioned here today will have for the rest of what's left of this fiscal year and into the next fiscal year. They'll have exactly the same opportunity, with just a little bit more money available, as we've discussed. So that should be good news to the member.

I do want to inform the member that the announcement that I talked about a bit earlier today includes some assistance for museums and historical societies. Courtenay, for example, was given operating assistance of $23,000 for their museum. The Cranbrook Archives, Museum and Landmark Foundation — that's the Canadian Museum of Rail Travel — received $48,000 in this most recent announcement. Burnaby Village Museum received $50,000 for operating assistance.
[ Page 14054 ]

It's a fairly routine thing for museums to receive funding through the B.C. Arts Council. That will continue. I don't see any change in that, so I don't think that the member needs to fret too much about that for the next fiscal year.

[1600]

The member did accuse me of attempting to make cheap political points. Again, I'm reading from the member's own letter, an open letter from the member, which he sent. It starts out: "Dear friend of the arts, I am writing to you as the official opposition critic for Arts and Culture." That was sent out on February 20, 2009.

The member states that I am, as minister, saying that the provincial government is providing an additional $15.1 million for arts, culture and heritage. He goes on to say that this statement is not backed up by the facts.

Well, the member surely knows that that's not the case now, but I do believe the member was trying to score some cheap political points with this. That's certainly the way it appears to me.

The member goes on to say in this letter to the arts and culture community: "After the election, the budget will then decline by about 50 percent." That also is just wrong, and the member has no substantiation for saying that. So again, it would appear to me that he's trying to score some political points. We are in politics, and I don't really, I guess, fault the member for that, but I do think it's important for me to point out that what he is saying publicly about what's happening with the arts and culture budget is just absolutely wrong.

I hope that after we're done here today, he will correct the record with the community and let the community know what exactly is happening. I do want to tell the member, in terms of museum funding, because he asked about museums….

This announcement that we just made has $19,000 going to the Kitimat Centennial Museum Association. Again, Delta Museum and Archives society is getting $30,000; the Langley Centennial Museum and National Exhibition Centre, $60,000; West Vancouver Museum, $15,000. The Haida Gwaii Museum is getting $40,000 for operating assistance, and in Smithers the Bulkley Valley Historical and Museum Society is getting $12,000.

There's actually a lot of support for museums and historical societies. In this current announcement of over $6 million, a total of $1.8 million has been handed out to museums and historical societies in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, just remember the point of the conversation here is to hear the minister and the members, and sometimes you're distracting even to the members and the minister.

S. Herbert: I'd like to thank the minister for the statement, but I guess it doesn't square with what I see here, which is the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts service plan, which was signed under the minister's hand and which shows that in 2010-2011, 2011-2012, after the election, the budget does decline, massively so. So for the minister to claim: "No, everything's fine. This person's making up stuff and should send an e-mail to people saying, 'Oh oops, I was wrong.'"

Well, I don't know what the service plan says. Maybe the service plan's wrong too. But based on what the minister has said earlier, that's certainly not so. The cuts are coming. The cuts are in the very service plan signed under the minister's hand. So I don't know what's going on here, if it's just words that don't mean what we normally think they mean.

When the budget so massively declines, that's a cut. It's not additional funding. This is a cut in 2010-2011. This is a cut in 2011-2012. And that's core funding.

One thing that the minister has talked about is sustainability and about the idea that an organization should feel secure. Museums should feel secure, because they'll be able to apply. "Oh yeah. Don't worry. Nothing's changed."

Well, by 2010-2011, 2011-2012, things have changed. Things have massively changed. Sure they'll be able to apply, but the funding is not the same. The funding has declined by about 50 percent.

I know the minister was speaking about this current fiscal year we're in. I know we're talking about supplements for the next fiscal year. It's great that they can get that money now. It's great that they can get this money in this next year, but according to the minister's own service plan, it's going to be pretty tough to get that money the following year. And that's not sustainable.

[1605]

For the minister to say: "I'm going to fight for that supplementary funding…." That's great, but that's not core funding. That's: "Maybe we're going to get it; maybe we ain't. Maybe it's coming; maybe it's not." But right now, based on what the Premier has been saying, what the Finance Minister has been saying, what this minister has been saying, it's pretty difficult that we're ever going to get that money next year, in 2010-2011, 2011-2012. It's massive cuts.

I hope the minister can recognize that. This is the way it is. This is his own plan. Unless this plan isn't worth the paper it's written on, that's what is coming to arts and culture in this province under this minister and under this Premier, and that's a scary future. That's a future of real difficulty. That's a future of companies crumbling, of organizations not being able to do their jobs. That's a future of thousands of jobs lost.

For a party that talks about jobs, they're now moving backwards. They're deciding that these jobs aren't worthy of their support. The arts here, under this plan, are not worthy of the investment, and that's wrong.
[ Page 14055 ]

President Obama understands that we need to invest in the arts in a tough fiscal period. We go back to the '30s and the Depression. They understood investing in the arts was a great fiscal stimulus. It also raised the spirit of the people.

We're talking a lot about numbers here, but I want to make sure that people also recognize, of course, that the arts are a great benefit to health, a great benefit to the spirit, community togetherness, bringing neighbourhoods together. They deal with community problems as well and help solve them. The arts do many things. But we're talking about economic stimulus, and we're talking about numbers today, so that's why I bring up those remarks.

Yes, the funding will decline after the election. It says right here in the service plan that the funding will decline, and as opposed to additional funding. So $7 million of additional funding…. Well, I guess if you want to see it the minister's way, additional funding is when you take away funding and then you give it back through a different pocket. That funding is the funding that was there before.

Additional money? Sure, if you slash and burn and then you give a couple of dollars back. You give additional one-time-only supplementary funding before you slash and burn again. That's additional funding, but that's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is that this is not a new investment. I've got press releases here where the minister is going on: "What a great thing it is for the future of B.C. It was in the throne speech. It was in the budget speech."

Reading the budget numbers in these service plans…. That's not a great day for B.C. That's a tough day. That's a bad day for arts and culture organizations, who are just going to get through this next year and then they're going to have the rug pulled out from under them if this minister and this government continue with their plans to destroy what have been years and years of growth.

All those last seven years that the minister earlier was talking about, how great his government has been to arts and culture — it throws it all down and knocks it down. It cuts it up. It puts us in the past, something that the minister likes to talk a lot about. But I'm talking about the future of our arts and culture community.

I'll turn to the next question here. I thank the minister for his earlier statements around museums and music organizations, and I'm hoping the minister might be able to give me the same assurances that, for one year only before the cuts come, theatre organizations…. I'll list a few just so that the minister and the people at home get an idea of how much this funding supports organizations and how much tearing it away will hurt organizations and hurt communities.

I speak about The Only Animal Theatre Society, groups like Western Gold Theatre, groups like The Nelson History Theatre, groups like Nanaimo Festival Heritage Theatre, groups like Pink Ink Theatre, Presentation House or the Leaky Heaven theatre society or the Greater Vancouver Professional Theatre Alliance, to name a few.

Can I have the assurance of the minister that they will all still be able to apply for this one year under this supplementary funding to continue to get one year's support from this government?

[1610]

Hon. B. Bennett: Same answer that I've given before. Any group or individual in the arts and culture community will have the same opportunity to apply and deal directly with the B.C. Arts Council and have their application adjudicated by the B.C. Arts Council. That applies to theatre, as well as the other groups that the member has mentioned. In this latest announcement that the ministry made with the B.C. Arts Council in the last 48 hours, the Vancouver Moving Theatre Society received $16,500 for project assistance — I think for festivals.

The Vancouver West Side Theatre — I'm sure that the member is familiar with that — just received $15,000 for project assistance for festivals. Here in Victoria the Intrepid Theatre Company Society received $45,000 for arts festivals. In Vancouver, $32,500 to the First Vancouver Theatrespace Society — again, theatre.

So there's no reason to think that theatre or dance or museums or book publishing or music should be in any different situation than they have been the past few years, in this next fiscal year. They will, in fact, be in the same situation. They will be able to go to the B.C. Arts Council. They'll be able to put their application in and have it adjudicated. In fact, despite the rather pessimistic picture that's being painted by the opposition member, there will actually be a few dollars more in the kitty to be applied for.

Now, I do want to just respond to a couple of things the member said. I also follow President Obama, and I think there's a lot to be learned from him and his style of leadership. But you're not seeing the U.S. projecting things out for three years. They are just as worried and probably at least as perplexed as any other jurisdiction in the world about what's going to happen over the next couple or three, four years.

They don't know. No one seems to know. You don't see him projecting out over long periods of time like that, for arts funding or anything else. So I don't think it's unusual for us to do what we're doing, which is to find $15.1 million through the supplementary budget and to put it into arts, culture and heritage.

You know, we went through an exercise as a caucus and as a cabinet. I was in B.C. for most of the 1990s. Maybe the government of the day did this. I never noticed them doing this. But over the past, I don't know, three or four months, each cabinet minister went into their ministry and tried to find money — essentially, to bring forward
[ Page 14056 ]
for the greater good of the province — to put into the priorities that we think the people of British Columbia have, like health care and education, like services for children, like services for adults with disabilities and a number of other important priorities like the ones I mentioned.

We were able to find, as a group of cabinet ministers, $1.9 billion within all of our budgets. That was an excruciating exercise to have to do that, but that's what you do. When you fall on hard times, you don't just keep spending the same way that you have been spending. I know the member and his colleagues don't like to hear about the past. If I were them, I wouldn't want to hear about the past either. But in fact, that is what happened in the 1990s.

They just went merrily along as their revenues were dropping, as they chased investment out of this province, as people fled the province and as the rest of Canada started to make fun of British Columbia. I remember what that felt like. It actually propelled me into politics. When I realized that people in Ontario were making fun of British Columbia in the 1990s because of the way the then government was managing the province, I decided I needed to get involved and try and do something about it.

[1615]

We're not going to manage the province that way. We saw what was happening. We did some belt-tightening. We got to work. We rolled up our sleeves, and we found $1.9 billion. Now, the easy thing would have been just simply to have added that $1.9 billion to the deficit. I'm sure that's what the NDP would do because politically, that would be a lot easier to do. But that's not the right thing to do, and that's not what taxpayers expect from us, so we didn't do that. We found it.

I know that in my ministry we found things like administration savings, travel. In my own particular office we've reduced our travel budget. We've reduced our advertising budget. We've reduced administration. We've tried to find early retirements, where that works for the public servant. We did everything we could do to try and not have the deficit be as large as it would have been with a different kind of government.

The member has made reference we "cut the budget" and then we're "playing games with this supplementary budget." In fact, if he looks across government, he will see examples of other situations where there are no supplementary budgets.

Again, I am grateful to the provincial government, to my colleagues, to the Finance Minister, to the Premier that we have this $15.1 million that we are able to put into arts, culture and heritage. It is a positive thing, and regardless of how hard the opposition may try to characterize this as something dark and negative, it's just not dark and negative. It's a very positive thing, and I'll continue to say that.

I really hope that the member rethinks his position on the letter that he has sent out to the arts and culture community, because he does say that there's a 50 percent cut to the arts and culture budget. He's not talking about tourism in this letter. He's talking about arts and culture.

He does say there's a 50 percent cut to the arts and culture budget, and he does say that the facts don't support that this extra $15.1 million is going to be coming into arts and culture. After today he has to know that's just not true.

So I hope that the member will clarify those two statements publicly, and then we can agree to disagree on other matters. That's fine.

The Chair: Members, I would just draw your attention to the fact we are on the supplementary estimates. Both the minister and the member should remember that in their discussion. Thank you.

S. Herbert: Yes, well stated. I'll try and keep on questions. I think there's an important distinction to be made from the hon. minister, hon. Chair. I know the minister characterized my remarks as dark and negative. I would hope that he doesn't call me a dark force, as he did in his community — somebody else.

I think he wanted me to rethink my statement about a 50 percent cut. Well, I'd be happy to rethink the statement about a 50 percent cut if he's happy to rethink his service plan, which shows that there's an approximately 50 percent cut in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

It was interesting that the minister talked about the '90s and about people in Ontario making fun. I've started to get e-mails from Ontario — and I think the minister would, as well, because I've seen his e-mail address on them — which start making fun of B.C. because of our cuts to the arts. So it's interesting that people making fun in Ontario drew him into politics, because that's what is happening right now with these cuts. People in Ontario are making fun of this province because of the cuts that this minister is bringing in, in 2010-2011, 2011-2012.

I'm glad that the minister spoke about trimming back. He likes to characterize folks on this side of the House as freewheeling. But it's interesting that actually it was last fall when the Leader of the Opposition called on the government to cut back on travel, to cut back on administration costs and to cut back on the ad budget. At that time the government was not interested in that.

I remember standing here in this House and speaking about the massive advertising budgets the government had been spending, and speaking about how they needed to trim back. You know, a number of months later they did. I think that's a good thing. Certainly, it helps the arts for this short period of time.

[1620]

But we see that in the future — and this is truthful, based on what's here in the minister's service plan — he needs to pay attention to what's in the service plan, because there is a cut here.
[ Page 14057 ]

I wanted to ask if my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant would like to take the floor. She's got a couple of questions for the minister.

J. Kwan: Thank you to my colleague the critic on Arts and Culture for yielding the floor to me. I do want to ask the minister some questions with respect to the funding allocated in these supplemental estimates.

Particularly, I'm interested in knowing whether or not any of those dollars would be applied towards an initiative that was started by a fellow named Bill Chu, who has actually done quite a lot of work. He heads up the non-profit organization called the Canadians for Reconciliation, and in his work he came across some grave sites, some burial sites in the Fraser Canyon area.

This is in the Lytton and Lillooet area. These, of course, were sites where many Chinese Canadians had settled many, many years ago, and you can actually see remnants of their existence, if you will. There is even a sort of house structure that is still there, and you see some of the everyday usage in terms of the utensils, pots and pans and what have you.

There's also a long sort of corridor or pathway in which you can see that the Chinese workers back then were labourers who physically removed the big boulders and rocks in creating the sort of pathway for the water to wash through the area so people could access water and so on and so forth.

In any event, this site now appears to be an abandoned site at the moment. In one particular location there's already a highways development on top of it, and there are bulldozers that are coming in to sort of destroy the site. This is, of course, of grave concern for historians, people who want to ensure that we capture our history. Of course, in a time when we're celebrating our 150th anniversary, we know that the Chinese community has contributed greatly in the development of British Columbia.

Bill Chu and a group of other people — Tekla Lit comes to mind; I think Joseph Lit as well, and others — have been working on this for some time in wanting to bring attention to this site and wanting the government to provide some seed money, if you will, to initiate a work plan so that we can protect the site, and we can get historians in place so that they can go and look at the site and develop a strategy of how we can ensure that we protect this historical site for educational purposes for future generations but also to retain part of our proud history in British Columbia.

I am particularly wondering whether or not any of these dollars as set aside in the estimates supplement would be and could be applied for this purpose so that work can begin. I know there are other historians who are with the universities who are interested and keen in working on this. We would need, of course, people who can start to archive this information to be able to tell what is of historical value and what is not of historical value, for example, and really begin the work.

Last but not least, there is a keen interest, of course, to ensure that we protect the site. Right now, as it stands, as I said, highways are kind of being built over top of it. Bulldozers are coming in to sort of tear down the site. If that work continues, and there is no designation of the area, then we will soon lose all of that history.

That would be a shame for the local community, which can potentially turn the area around into a tourism opportunity for the future, but equally importantly, that is a lost opportunity for all of us who want to preserve our history in British Columbia.

Hon. B. Bennett: The short answer to the member's question — which I think was: is any of the supplementary budget going towards this situation, this specific situation in the Fraser Canyon? — is no.

[1625]

The supplementary budget, as I indicated at the beginning of our debate here today, is allocated $7 million to the B.C. Arts Council and $8.1 million to heritage — but not this particular site.

I think the member is right to raise it. It sounds like an important project. I am aware of it. Certainly, we recognize the contribution of B.C.'s Chinese community over the past century and a half. We have, frankly, over the past year, through the BC150 program, actually done a number of things to commemorate the Chinese contribution to the province.

For example, the Revelstoke Museum and Archives Association received $8,000 for an exhibit focused on the role of the Chinese community in building the Canadian Pacific Railway. A $10,000 grant was given to the Kelowna Community Resources Society to produce an educational documentary focusing on the history of Chinese migrants to the interior in B.C. during the 1900s.

A $10,000 grant was given to the Lifetime Learning Centre Society in Mission for an initiative that they called Whispered Voices presentation, which showcases the presence of Chinese immigrants in the Mission area. A $10,000 grant was given to central Vancouver Island to their multicultural society for a celebration of the contributions made by Chinese settlers in Nanaimo.

A $10,000 grant was given to the Quesnel and District Museum and Archives for a Chinese pioneer cemetery, cairn and plaque to pay tribute to the historical contributions of Quesnel's Chinese pioneers. A $10,000 grant was given to the Chinese Canadian Historical Society of B.C. for a project that they called Chinese Canadians and First Nations: 150 Years of Shared Experiences.

Those are just a few things that have been done in the past year in the province to honour the contributions that the Chinese have made to this province.

I can also tell the member that our staff is aware of the situation. We are having discussions with the regional
[ Page 14058 ]
district, and the heritage branch has, in fact, contacted Mr. Chu. We are hoping to be able to work with Mr. Chu and figure out a way to do the things that the member has indicated need to be done, such as the preservation of this particular heritage.

J. Kwan: While it's interesting, I don't really want to get into a long debate about the government's action on the celebration of BC150. Certainly, I've heard from various folks in the community, particularly from the Asian community, their concerns around the government's website on that. In fact, there is very little information or mention of the Chinese community and their contribution. Community members have raised their concerns, certainly, with me.

I don't really want to get into that. I do want, though, to talk about this particular site. None of the dollars are allocated in the supplemental estimates. The minister says the staff are having a discussion with Mr. Bill Chu regarding this site.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Could the minister please be more specific about where the funding opportunities might be to which Mr. Chu and his organization and others working with him could make application — so that we can actually see something tangible in place with respect to the preservation of this site and the cataloguing, if you will, of the materials that are found in the burial site and so that we can ensure this valuable piece of heritage is retained?

Hon. B. Bennett: Once again, I am pleased to have a very positive answer for the member. Apparently, we are in discussions with Mr. Chu and are making some progress in terms of defining the scope of this particular project.

[1630]

I don't think that we know or that anyone knows yet just exactly what needs to be done, how much money is required, how much time it will take, how many people. That work has to be done, obviously, before government makes any commitments and, in fact, even before Mr. Chu knows exactly what's in store for him. Good on him for having the interest to take this on, and I applaud him for that.

To answer more specifically the member's question, there is a program within our heritage branch that's called community heritage planning program. I suspect that the gentleman will know about this already, but in the event that he doesn't, that's the name of it. It's called community heritage planning, and it is an existing program within the ministry.

Hon. Chair, this is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the estimates. This is not part of the $15.1 million in the supplementary budgets. I'm happy to help the member because I know she's genuinely interested in this, but it isn't, strictly speaking, something that's supposed to be debated as part of the estimates process here today.

J. Kwan: I'll just wrap this up, because I thought that under this pocket of money there were some heritage dollars available, and I just wondered whether or not those heritage dollars would be applied for this particular initiative. So this is why I asked it.

The minister now says that it does not apply, although there's another pocket called the community heritage planning program to which the group can apply, and I'm delighted to hear that. I certainly will be following up with that.

Could the minister please advise who from his staff team is working on this, so that I can actually talk some more with his staff team about it and not take up time in this chamber around this issue?

Hon. B. Bennett: I am informed that the gentleman and the member, if she wants to be involved at that detailed level, should contact the deputy minister, Lorne Brownsey. He will put the gentleman in touch with the appropriate people within heritage branch.

The other part of the member's question. She's right. The member is correct. There is an allocation, quite a significant allocation, to heritage out of this $15.1 million, and I'm really grateful, actually, to have the opportunity to talk about it because it's a very, very important part of the supplementary budget.

We have had a pretty fulsome discussion about arts and culture, but $8.1 million of this supplementary budget is going to provincial heritage sites in the province. We did an announcement today at St. Ann's chapel. We had some folks down from Barkerville, from Fort Steele, from Hat Creek ranch and from some of the other provincial heritage sites in the province. They wore their traditional outfits.

I can tell you, hon. Chair — and I can tell the opposition, if any of them are actually interested in heritage — that the heritage community in British Columbia is very, very happy today that $8.1 million will go to sustain provincial heritage sites over the next three years.

So at a time when the economy is struggling, at a time when lots and lots of people, lots of businesses, lots of ministries, would love to have sustainable funding that they can count on, the provincial heritage sites in this province will have ample sustainable funding for the next three years. That's something that I am very proud of. It's something that's very important to me personally.

I think heritage is something that we just can't let go. We have to make sure that heritage assets are maintained. They inform us as to who we are as a society and a people and where we come from. That's the importance of heritage. Heritage also has become a very important component of tourism, the other arm of this ministry.
[ Page 14059 ]
So being able to put this $8.1 million that we are discussing here today as part of the supplementary budgets into the provincial heritage sites…. It's a great day for heritage in British Columbia.

[1635]

J. Kwan: I find it interesting that the minister likes to filibuster his own estimates. But anyway, that's okay. He can do what he wants, I suppose.

I want to be very clear in stating this, and I'll wrap with these comments. I'm glad to hear that the minister says that he values heritage sites and that this government does. We'll see. I hope that those words ring true, in particular with this site — with the Fraser Canyon at Lytton and Lillooet in the work that the group is undertaking.

More specifically, the group is asking the government to actually ensure that the site is preserved right now so that it's not further demolished in any way or tampered with in any way, so the heritage artifacts on the site would not be lost. So I ask the government to undertake to do that immediately.

I ask the government to undertake, of course, to work with the group to ensure that funding is in place so that we can actually put a historian in place so that they can go to the site and review which of the aspects are valuable, of heritage significance, so that we can preserve it for future generations to come and so that we can archive it accordingly.

We ultimately want to see the community flourish in terms of the tourism opportunities and so on. So perhaps a museum or some sort of structure in and around there that could house this material would also be valuable — just a sum of the concepts that the group has bandied around to begin with.

Some seed money to put together a plan, with respect to that, to protect the site and then ultimately long-term funding for a fulsome development of the heritage site would be greatly appreciated.

I will indeed follow up with Mr. Brownsey so that I can get the information as to who I should speak with in order to see this project through. It is one of interest to me — and not just to me but, I think, to many people who want to ensure that our heritage is preserved.

I also just want to say this. I see that this is a joint project working with the member for Burnaby North. Recently we met with the people from the Chinese Freemasons association. They are perhaps one of the oldest Chinese organizations in our community, if not the oldest. They actually provided the Barkerville site to the government for preservation.

Of course, we know the history about Barkerville — the sort of, well, not-so-stellar history around Barkerville — when the government came into office, because they actually tried to sell Barkerville. Luckily for the district of Wells, which came in to save that site and did a lot of work around it….

I know that my colleague the member for Vancouver-Burrard will get into it, and I know that my colleague from the Cariboo South area will also get into that. But I do want to say this. What is of interest for the Chinese Freemasons association is for them to also bring together the organizations that have an interest in the preservation of history and have contributed to the development of British Columbia so that we can start to catalogue the information around our history over the years in British Columbia.

I'm wondering whether or not these supplemental estimates will provide the dollars, or a place to which they can apply under heritage, to get some support to do that work. Or maybe, if not, would Mr. Brownsey be the appropriate person I should speak with to get some information so that we can coordinate that effort with the Chinese Freemasons?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the answer is still the same. I think that was pretty much the same question the member asked.

J. Kwan: No, it was a different one.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I thought that that was pretty much the same question that the member asked. I'll check with the member and just see whether I have it right, because maybe I don't. The question is whether there is funding for the initiative that the member has described in the Fraser Canyon.

J. Kwan: The Freemasons are a different issue.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: As I said earlier, this supplementary budget of $15.1 million does not cover the initiative that the member is asking about. I've been pretty clear about that. I've suggested that Mr. Chu should continue to deal with our staff. I gave the member the name of a program that may be available for this.

[1640]

I can tell the member that, in terms of heritage and our commitment to heritage for the kinds of programs that she is referring to, the kinds of initiatives that the member refers to in the Fraser Canyon, just this current fiscal year that we're in right now, we put almost $200,000 into community heritage planning for B.C. communities. We put in $343,750 to the historic places initiatives. That, once again, is this year — the fiscal year we're in. We've given the B.C. Museum Association $75,000 for the development of something they call the Heritage Tourism Alliance. And on and on it goes.

We have made, I think, a consistent and substantial commitment to heritage in the province. We'll continue
[ Page 14060 ]
to do that. With the announcement made today of the $8.1 million going to the provincial heritage sites, they are so happy that they know what their budget is. They can plan, and they can do some of the things they've always wanted to do in some of these heritage sites across the province.

I hope that all the members of the House share in the excitement of this announcement. I hope that they'll all help celebrate it, because I can tell you that any of the heritage folks I talk to today are extremely happy with what we've been able to do with this supplementary budget.

C. Wyse: I'm pleased for this opportunity that you're providing me, Madam Chair, to get up and talk about the supplementary estimates. I know you'll correct me should I have it wrong. Supplementary estimates are sort of tagged on at the end of the year when the government has found things they were not aware of, and they're making some adjustments to a budget year that is being wound up.

I know that for years I have been raising the issue with his ministry about the underfunding for heritage funds in my riding — years. I know that those societies have been struggling for years. I know that they threatened to actually walk away from facilities, because they have been squeezed so tight for years.

I understand why those societies would be pleased that the government has finally found some funds, after making it so difficult for so long to provide this needed service here in British Columbia.

When I came in, I was going to seek some clarification on the news release that came out on February 26, 2009. What concerns me is the lateness that the government has discovered the need for these types of items. They have discovered them — and you will correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Chair — with an election date coming up in approximately two months. These announcements are run out as a one-time-only grant. Now, that also has a part to deal with the supplementary estimates.

To the minister, my question is: when did he become aware that these societies were having great difficulty in dealing with their operations?

Hon. B. Bennett: I appreciate the passion of the member. He obviously cares about heritage. Probably, like me, he's been to a few of the rural heritage sites around the province.

I've had the good fortune to have had this job since late June. I think June 23 was the day I was sworn in. One of the reasons I was happy to have the opportunity was because heritage was contained within this ministry.

[1645]

Where I live, Fort Steele is just a stone's throw, basically, from Cranbrook. I've spent a lot of time at Fort Steele with my family over the years. My kids used to go there every Halloween. They put on quite an extravaganza at Halloween every year at Fort Steele. They do just a fantastic job of operating that site. They are actually one of our major tourism attractions in the East Kootenay.

I've never, not since I've had this job nor before that in the eight years that I've been the MLA for the area — Fort Steele being just outside of my riding, but I kind of look after it anyways — heard their world described the way that the member just described it. They've not ever said that to me. In fact, since I've been minister, I haven't received any letters from any of the provincial heritage sites describing their situation in such extreme and dire terms as was just described by the member.

You know, I can spend a lot of time here this afternoon talking about our commitment to heritage over the past few years. The member characterized our commitment as not being strong, and these societies, as he refers to them, sound like they're in dire straits and so forth. There's no doubt that they are very, very good with the money they have. These folks….

This is a labour of love for the heritage community. There's no question about that. When you go to Carr House and you talk to the couple that manages Emily Carr House here in Victoria, you'll see a pair of people who do this because they love it. They love the house. They love Emily Carr, everything Emily Carr did and everything she stands for. That's the nature of the people who are involved in the heritage business, and that's one of the reasons I like working with them.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It's one of the reasons why we were able to do this supplementary budget, to find that $8.1 million that gives heritage sites in this province the budget, not for one year but for three years, to sustain them through this very, very difficult period that we're in. We've done a lot of things for heritage.

Actually, back in July of 2007 — I believe the member is responsible for 100 Mile House — we gave $334,760 to the district of 100 Mile House to upgrade the historic Martin Exeter Hall and 100 Mile Lodge and Conference Centre. Those upgrades have been done. They included the replacement of an aged sewer lift station.

I notice the member didn't mention that particular project when he stood up and criticized the government's performance with regard to heritage, but that's on the record. That's almost $335,000 that actually went into the member's riding, for the maintenance and improvement of an important heritage asset in his riding. I hope that this member and other members on the other side can start to feel the love.

This is a wonderful announcement. It's $8.1 million, spread over three years. That's going to sustain the heritage sites in this province. It is a positive thing.
[ Page 14061 ]

I know it's really, really difficult for the other side to be positive, but they should try. I mean, I feel really good about it, and if they just tried to feel good about it, they'd feel as good as I do, and maybe they'd be happy to feel good and positive, you know, instead of the way they tend to feel most of the time. That's just personal advice, and obviously, they may well not want to adopt that advice.

C. Wyse: I gather that the minister did not go back before June 23, '08, and do his homework within his file and look at back information that had been sent to him. There are issues here.

[1650]

These provincial heritage properties, which are contained in the supplementary budget that is here, are separate from the Martin Exeter Hall announcement. Because the minister had brought up that item, I will let him know here in the House that I have had meetings with the council of 100 Mile in January. That particular facility requires approximately $800,000 to a million dollars of other additions to be made to it. If they are not found, the village of 100 Mile, in actual fact, will have to shut down that facility.

The minister is referring to a water and sewer project. But leaving the supplementary estimates and coming back to dealing with the provincial heritage aspect that we have in front of us, those particular facilities have been struggling almost from the day that they were turned over to the private operators.

They have been struggling to continue the historical significance, in my general area, of Barkerville, which happens to be in Cariboo North, and the Hat Creek historical society buildings, which are in my riding. I have met with that society and members of it on the difficulties that they have experienced in remaining financially afloat.

If these funds had been included in the regular budgeting, in my judgment, it would have shown a true understanding of the situation that existed. But unfortunately, in my estimation, particularly in the form that the supplementary estimates have been presented by this particular minister, clearly having these announcements being made at this point in time smacks of being more influenced by the upcoming provincial election than they have had to do with a love for the history and the heritage of this province.

Returning to the media release that I referred to earlier, I do not happen to see the historic Hat Creek project that is contained in here. My question to the minister is: is that part of the project that is being referred to? If so, what funding relationship has been given to this particular facility and society, for how long, and what conditions have been attached to them?

Hon. B. Bennett: I have yet another happy, positive answer for the member on Hat Creek. It is in fact included in the $8.1 million. That is a provincial heritage site, so I am pleased to tell the member that they will have three years of sustainable, reliable funding, which is, I hope — to the member — excellent news.

Now today we did have a very nice announcement over at St. Ann's chapel. As I said earlier, many of the provincial heritage operators made a point of coming down and helping us celebrate this announcement.

I would like to read into the record. The leader of the provincial heritage site group is Jan Ross, who is the site manager of Emily Carr House. Miss Ross said today: "The funding announced today for provincial heritage properties demonstrates that the government recognizes that these sites, and indeed heritage itself, hold great value and are worth investing in."

I appreciate the fact that the heritage community, the managers and the boards of the provincial sites, are grateful for the fact that we do have this sustaining funding for the next three years.

[1655]

Now, with regard to that portion of the member's question that deals with how the money will be spent, how much money will go to the various sites — I think he was asking specifically about Hat Creek Ranch — we will enter into agreements with each of the provincial sites. That, obviously, has not happened yet because there hasn't been enough time for that to happen, but our very capable staff is already talking to the provincial sites. They will enter into agreements for the next three years. The site managers and their boards will actually tell us what it is that they want to accomplish over the next three years. We're not going to tell them.

In terms of strings — I think that the member used the term "strings" — there won't be any strings attached to the money that goes to the provincial heritage sites, other than that these taxpayer dollars need to be used in the best interests of that particular heritage site and to be used responsibly.

I can tell you, hon. Chair, that I have the utmost confidence in the management of these provincial heritage sites. They are some of the hardest-working, most dedicated people I've ever encountered. It's an honour for me to work with them. I know that when we have entered into our agreements and the dollars start to flow, they will get more out of those dollars than we can imagine — and good on them. I think, again, they're very excited about this opportunity, and I know they're going to do a great job.

C. Wyse: I believe I was here in this House earlier this week when I discovered, much to my chagrin, that we had ministries here that had developed political pots of money to roll out just before the election.

What I believe I just heard the minister saying is that sometime in the near future, hopefully before May 12, the actual historical societies are going to find out how
[ Page 14062 ]
much they're going to get, when they're going to get it and what their conditions are. That's what I believe I heard the minister say.

Apparently, there's another ministry here that is doing the same thing, which I discovered earlier this week. I wish I had had the opportunity to ask this minister whether he would have had the courtesy to invite all members of the House to attend these announcements.

I have just heard today that there was a group brought together from around the province. I don't think it matters whether they were people from my constituency or not, or from other constituencies here around the province. It was an announcement that was made on behalf of this House, with the taxpayers' money, for the good of everybody, that hasn't been approved, that we're in the process of debating.

We apparently have got ministries and ministers that are looking upon these supplementary funds here as though it's their own personal box of money to run around the province and distribute as they see fit. That is shameful.

I understand that I have to wait, but my constituency has been waiting for years for support from this government on dealing with their heritage site. Maybe there should be an election every year, so that all of these needs would be heard here in Victoria.

My question to the minister: will he tell this House whether he will extend an invitation to all MLAs to be invited to any announcements that are being made with regard to these heritage sites?

[1700]

Hon. B. Bennett: For the member's benefit. He has been here for almost four years, and I'm sure he knows that provincial budgets are done in early to mid-February. That's the time of the year that we do debate our budgets. We announce what we want to do. We debate it, and then, hopefully, we pass it. There's nothing unusual about having a discussion about a budget in February in British Columbia that I can think of.

As far as the member's outrage about the $8.1 million of this supplementary budget going to provincial heritage sites, I suspect that the people who support provincial heritage in this province will be disappointed to know that the opposition does not support this $8.1 million going to provincial heritage sites to sustain them for the next three years. That's what I think I heard the member say. I think I heard the member say….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think what I heard the hon. member say is that he doesn't think that government should have given these provincial heritage sites this $8.1 million. That's sad, frankly. That's sad.

Again, to respond to the member's accusation that the province doesn't support heritage, I would remind the member that in December — that's two months ago — in honour of the province's 150th birthday and in partnership with the federal Department of Canadian Heritage, we provided $1.7 million to celebrate and recognize the significant role that heritage plays in British Columbia.

That $1 million went to community heritage projects through one-time grants of up to $20,000. There was a very broad representation from across the province in terms of where those $20,000 grants — some of them were smaller than that — went. It was all across the province. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in the Cariboo. I don't have the list in front of me, but 38 different communities tapped into that million dollars that we were able to find.

That's not for the provincial heritage sites. That was for community heritage. In addition to that million dollars, we also put $700,000 on the table for Barkerville and Fort Steele. They are the two largest provincial heritage sites in the province. They have the greatest economic impact of the sites. They create by far the largest number of jobs and require substantially more funding than most of the other sites, and all of the provincial heritage site operators are well aware of that. In fact, the group seems to understand each other's needs very well.

We also in 2008 provided over a million dollars in one-time funding to community partners who manage provincial heritage sites. So again, more money to provincial heritage in 2008.

If you add it all up, I would dispute the member's statement that we don't support provincial heritage. We do support provincial heritage, and in fact, that's what we're doing here right now. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about $8.1 million over three years to provincial heritage to sustain them. They're happy about that. The opposition's not happy about that. That's too bad.

C. Wyse: I will go back through my file, and I will find letters that were sent in support of these organizations in seeking additional funding for the provincial heritage sites. Their record of looking for support from the province has been there, and it indeed had been my colleague from Cariboo North's and my pleasure to have added our letters of support for the heritage sites that were in our area.

I leave that here so that it is on the record, and with that I defer to my colleague.

[1705]

M. Farnworth: I have a few questions that I'd like to ask the minister. I'd like to start off with a comment.

This is a supplementary estimate. Supplementary estimates, in my experience in this House, are usually for expenditures incurred during the previous fiscal year that were over the budgeted amount at the tabling of the previous year's budget.
[ Page 14063 ]

An example would be forest fires, where the government budgets X amount of dollars, and over the course of the year, they end up spending more of that because of forces beyond their control.

Health care is another area. It's not normal, and it's not standard practice, to be using supplemental estimates to fund the current or the upcoming fiscal year's programs by booking the money in the previous fiscal year.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca says, unless, perhaps, it's an election year. So I just want to make that clear.

The focus of my questions is actually in regards to the money that's being expensed, particularly around heritage. The minister has made some statements that he is concerned about heritage, that the province is concerned about heritage.

So the first question that I'd like to ask the minister is: how much of that $8 million is going or is earmarked for communities to protect their heritage, outside the currently recognized provincial heritage sites such as Fort Steele, Barkerville? How much of that $8 million is available to communities to protect sites that they feel are important heritage sites in their own communities?

Hon. B. Bennett: As to the first part of the member's question, these are unusual times. I think the member would agree that the situation that we find ourselves in, in British Columbia, in Canada, in the world today, requires us to think outside the box. If that's what we're doing, then I guess the folks that believe in heritage, that support heritage, will be happy with that.

The opposition might not be happy with that, but the situation required action. The situation required us to come up with sustainable funding for the provincial heritage sites, and that's what we've done. I think that, at the end of the day, the opposition will support that.

With regard to the second question, the hon. member probably was too busy to have his television on in his office when he wasn't in here. I've been quite clear that the $8.1 million that forms part of the supplementary budget is going to provincial heritage sites, not to heritage sites that are not provincial sites. There has been — as I've talked about, and I'd be happy to talk some more about it — a lot of support that has gone to community-based heritage. A million dollars just around Christmastime is one example.

This particular money is going to…. I believe there are 11 provincial heritage sites. I probably should get it on the record which of the sites, just because the member has asked for clarification. The Barkerville Historic Town is one. Cottonwood House is another. Craigflower Manor, here in Victoria, is another. Craigflower Schoolhouse, here in Victoria, is another and Emily Carr House, of course, Fort Steele, the Grist Mill at Keremeos, Historic Hat Creek Ranch, the Kilby Store and Farm up in Kent, Point Ellice House and historic Yale.

Those are the provincial heritage sites, and they will get a portion of the $8.1 million once we have agreed with them on the terms of that arrangement.

M. Farnworth: I think the term these days from the government side isn't "thinking outside the box." I think it's "thinking outside the numbers." I'm well aware of the $8 million going to the provincial heritage sites, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are communities outside those particular heritage sites that are looking for funding, that have sites that could be provincial in nature and that are looking for support.

[1710]

So when the government has decided that they're going to allocate $8 million in a supplementary estimate for provincial heritage sites, maintaining that these are unique and challenging times, I'm just wondering: was there any thought given to providing additional moneys in the community heritage portion of the budget and whether the minister had made any thoughts about that.

The second question I'd like to ask the minister. He listed off some 20 sites. Is there a provincial heritage inventory of heritage sites, heritage buildings, that's maintained by the province of British Columbia?

Hon. B. Bennett: The first part of the member's question. The answer, really, is no. We didn't have the resources to go outside of the provincial heritage sites. Again, we have been, if not generous, I think that we've provided considerable funding and adequate funding to community heritage in the province.

There will always be demand, and I doubt that any government will ever do enough. But we have to do as much as we possibly can. We have, and we will continue to do that. We do work quite closely with local government. We do a lot of planning through the community heritage planning group that we have set up. So at least staff is aware of the needs outside of the provincial heritage sites.

To answer the second part of the question, we do have a registry. I think it's called the B.C. register of historic places. All of the heritage sites in the province are apparently listed in that registry.

We have funded non-provincial sites — as I said a couple of times already this afternoon — quite adequately. The Heritage Legacy Fund pumped money into it over the past year, and the BC150 heritage fund, as well, funded heritage. I believe — I'm hoping, anyways — that we will be able to help heritage advocates in the province, not just the provincial sites but everyone who cares about heritage and who has a heritage asset in the province. We will help them as best we can to tap into any money that may be available in the federal budget as well.
[ Page 14064 ]

M. Farnworth: The minister said there's an inventory of provincial heritage sites. Can he confirm that those are recognized by the provincial and, for example, would be…? If you're driving up the Fraser Canyon, there will be a site along the Fraser Canyon of historical interest. That's what would be in the provincial heritage inventory, as opposed to….

I'll give an example. In Port Coquitlam, for example, there are two, what the community would consider, historical buildings. One's called the Charles Lobb House, and then the other is a structure that was built in 1889 by the third settler in the community at that time. It's viewed as a heritage site within the city of Port Coquitlam, but that would not be covered by the provincial heritage inventory the minister talked about. Or would it be?

[1715]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm informed by staff that most of the heritage sites that are listed on that registry that I mentioned in my last answer actually came out of the community consultation process that heritage branch has had with municipalities around the province. So I can tell the member that even though none of the $8.1 million is going towards that type of heritage in the province, it is going to the provincial heritage sites.

There has been this process of consultation and learning between the provincial government and communities to first of all identify what's there, to identify their heritage value, and then to work with communities on what needs to be done to preserve that value.

M. Farnworth: That's basically getting to the point that I'm trying to make here this afternoon. The minister is approving $8.1 million in the supplementary estimate, a supplementary estimate that is moving money forward in the context that we live in whatever times the minister's terminology wants to use.

This is money going to be expensed this past fiscal year for activity in the coming fiscal year. I want to make the case to the minister that those provincial heritage sites are important. They need to be funded.

Yet at the same time, while the minister's talking about that and talking about wanting to enable communities to be able to do activities in their own communities that can spur economic development and heritage protection, there's a huge gap that is out there. It's not a question of doing everything and never being able to do enough.

Part of it is understanding some basic baselines of where we are in terms of our heritage inventory in this province. In the city of Port Coquitlam, for example, I just a moment ago mentioned the Charles Lobb House, built shortly after the turn of the century. That building came down, to the consternation of many in the community. It went under the wrecking ball just over a week ago. That building is now gone forever.

Just half a block down from that building is the oldest structure still standing in Port Coquitlam, which was built in 1889 — a farmhouse. Again, it is under threat of development. Heritage conservation groups in the Tri-Cities, the Lower Mainland and communities such as Port Coquitlam applaud the protection of provincial heritage sites but are extremely concerned and dismayed about the lack of resources that are available to inventory, to protect and to preserve that local heritage, which is extremely important to the development of communities and to fostering that sense of history and pride in communities.

Those two examples are from my own community, and there are hundreds across communities right across the province. So my question to the minister is: if it's clear that none of that $8.2 million is available to that, when can organizations such as the Port Coquitlam Heritage and Cultural Society look forward to seeing support and resources from the government in terms of protecting and being able to help protect and preserve buildings such as the Charles Lobb House in my community, which sadly is no more, but also other important structures such as the one I've just outlined, a farmhouse dating back to 1889?

I can guarantee you that in the Lower Mainland, there are very few buildings that date back to 1889, particularly outside of New Westminster and the city of Vancouver.

Hon. B. Bennett: I've been around this place long enough to know that it's the job of the opposition to point out what we're not doing and not to focus too much on the good things that we're doing, and I understand that. The $8.1 million that's going to provincial heritage sites, as I have said several times, is a great thing. It's a great announcement.

[1720]

The member is correct to point out that none of this particular money is going to what you might refer to as community-based heritage, but we have a good record on that. I'm not going to bore the House with all of the money, over the past couple of years, that this government has put into community-based heritage, but it is substantial.

There are amounts going all over the province: $200,000, $345,000, $75,000, $1 million in December of 2008; $1.09 million for community partners who manage provincial sites; $72,000, $334,000. Lots of resources have gone out to community-based heritage, and through this process that we have set up between local government and the ministry, we are identifying those assets.

The legislation states quite clearly that the ultimate responsibility for making that choice about whether municipal resources will be invested in a local heritage site or not rests with the municipality. That's what the legislation states.
[ Page 14065 ]

Maybe the member thinks it ought to be different. I don't know. But it isn't different. That's what the legislation states, that municipalities have to decide whether a particular building or a site is important enough for them to identify it and to invest in its preservation and maintenance. If they do make that choice, we're there to help. We're there to work with them. We do work with them. We respect them, and I think our track record is very positive in that regard.

M. Farnworth: The minister points back to local government, and yes, there's a lot of responsibility at the local government level. But given what we are witnessing and what we've seen, for example, in the Tri-Cities, and what we're losing, I think that the province needs to be playing a stronger role than it has done.

However, in the interest of time I'd like to ask the minister one question. Would he be willing to meet with members of the Port Coquitlam Heritage and Cultural Society, to sit down with them to discuss what resources are available to them as an organization and to local government in order to protect heritage within the city of Port Coquitlam, for example?

Hon. B. Bennett: I would be delighted to meet with that group. Whenever we can set that meeting up, I will go over there, if that's necessary, or they can come here, whatever is most convenient for them. I'd be more than happy to do that.

I do understand, just for the member's benefit, and he may know this already, but apparently our staff have been in discussions with the municipality there about the particular site or building the member is referring to. So there have been discussions at that level, and I'm more than happy to meet with those folks and talk to them about their project.

N. Macdonald: The question I have for the minister is this. Of course, Fort Steele is in my area, and what I've been told is that Fort Steele is similar to concerns that were expressed on a number of the sites that the minister is responsible for. There are 11 sites altogether.

I had the opportunity, during my time as the critic for this file, to get to Barkerville and Point Ellice, of course, Craigflower Manor and school as well as Hat Creek, which isn't all of them. Hopefully, the minister, if he's able to enjoy the file properly and fully, has been to all of the sites. I enjoyed them.

The concern that I heard, and I'm sure a concern the minister has heard as well, is with the capital costs. I'm assuming that what we see here in the supplementary estimates is an attempt to deal with that concern.

The question I have is: of the funds that have been identified here for this ministry of $15.1 million, how much of that money is going to the 11 provincially owned historic sites?

[1725]

Hon. B. Bennett: With all due respect to the member, and I mean this jovially, he obviously hasn't had his television set on in his office this afternoon. The answer is pretty clear. I've said it I don't know how many times here this afternoon. There's $8.1 million from this supplementary budget going to the 11 provincial heritage sites, and Fort Steele, of course, is on that list.

N. Macdonald: Then can the minister break down how those figures work? I see from the news conference that the minister had today…. Break down the sums for us then. How much exactly will Fort Steele receive?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is an interesting process. I have answered this question a couple of times at least, but I'll answer it again. I'm happy to do that.

We will be negotiating contracts with the 11 sites. That process has started already. We don't know the exact dollar figure that will go to each site until we have that agreement. We have to have that agreement. We will have that agreement not later than the end of March of this year, and then we will have the terms for all 11 sites, how much they're getting. Of course, they'll decide how they're going to use it.

One thing I can tell the member is that with this funding, none of the provincial sites will get any less than what they're getting under their current contract today. Most will get more.

N. Macdonald: Just so that I understand the process, and this is an ongoing concern that I'm sure the minister has heard. While operating funds are something that these societies can generally find, in terms of they can make it work, what is an ongoing problem is the fact that these buildings, which are heritage buildings, do have difficulty with capital funding. The minister would have heard it again and again. This is a very odd way of funding that.

I think all of us are very pleased that this funding is going to take place, and presumably, at some point we will find out actually where the funds are going to be distributed, but it is a very odd way of doing it. These costs were predictable. They should have been in last year's budget, or they should be in next year's budget. So we are going through a fairly odd sort of exercise here.

The minister has said that the funds will be distributed and that there will be announcements towards the end of March. My question is this: how much money is it anticipated that the various facilities will receive? What I would point to is having gone to Point Ellice…. I mean, even to me there were a number of obvious areas that needed improvement around the roof and the walls.
[ Page 14066 ]

With Craigflower Manor and school, there's obviously the fire damage. I would be interested if there's an insurance aspect or if these funds are going to cover that. Certainly, with Fort Steele and with Barkerville there are substantial amounts of money that are going to have to be spent.

Approximate numbers would be fine, some indication of what can be expected. Also a sense from the minister whether he thinks these sums — there's a one-time basis — are going to be adequate. Or is there some recognition from the minister that these capital costs are really something that need to be dealt with on a long-term basis?

This is a one-off. I would suggest it's dealing with an emergency situation. The minister may contest that, but nevertheless, there are ongoing capital costs that are going to have to be made. Is there any thinking around how you provide these facilities with the funds that they need over the long term?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll just correct the member with one thing. I actually did not say announcements in March. I haven't made any reference to any announcements being made in March.

[1730]

Let me start at the back end of the member's question with the last item first, Craigflower Manor. We're not sure yet what it will cost to restore that precious facility. I understand we're getting close to knowing that. It may be in the order of $100,000 or so, although we don't know that for sure yet.

Craigflower Manor will be assisted in repairing the damage that was done by the fire outside of the supplementary budget funds that we're discussing here today. None of the $8.1 million will go to the restoration of Craigflower Manor. We'll do that separately. We will find the money to do that and help them out.

With regard to the member's comments about the need for…. I don't know if I'll get the words right, but long-term stable funding is what I think he means. That's precisely what we're doing. That's precisely why this is such a positive announcement. It's precisely why members on the other side should be happy.

This is a very good announcement for heritage in this province. We're putting in place sustaining funding for three years. It's a full budget cycle for provincial heritage. I can't for the life of me find anything negative in that. Perhaps the opposition can.

A couple of members — this member hasn't yet — have suggested by their words, in effect, that we shouldn't be doing this. I certainly hope that's not the position of the opposition. Again, I can inform the opposition — and in particular the member who asked the question, because Fort Steele is actually in his riding — that they were down here today. They're very grateful, and they are very pleased.

S. Herbert: Thank you to my colleagues and the minister for discussing heritage. I've got a number of questions on heritage, which I'll return to later. I wanted to get back to the discussion of arts and culture we'd been having earlier.

I've got a couple of facts and figures that I wanted to discuss here so the people watching at home, the members who have joined us here now, people in the gallery will have an idea of why this is so important to me and why I'm concerned about this. Those are directly related to the supplementary estimates that we're discussing.

Basically, I think with the 50 percent cut in support which is coming — 2010, 2011, 2012 — to the arts and culture sector, we are facing a devastating future for arts and culture communities across B.C. Currently over 117,000 people are employed in the cultural sector in B.C. That's about 5 percent of the B.C. labour force.

On average between 1996 and 2003, cultural output had contributed almost 4 percent of the provincial GDP. It's gone up since then. I don't have the latest figures with me right now, but suffice to say that it's pretty impressive, what it does for our province's economy.

Study after study has shown that investing in the arts provides a disproportionate economic stimulus on local communities compared to some other industries. The Conference Board of Canada has stated that the cultural sector contributes about $84.6 billion in direct and indirect benefits to Canada's GDP. That was 2007.

I think it's important to keep these figures in mind as we discuss this supplementary one-time-only funding before the massive cuts come in 2010, 2011, 2012 to the arts and culture budget.

Communities as diverse as Nelson — I see my colleague from Nelson-Creston here today — Langley, Kelowna, Pemberton, Vancouver and Victoria have all recognized the economic value arts and culture play in their largely — at least for the Pemberton, Kelowna, Langley and Nelson communities — resource-based economies. They've made the arts a focus of their economic development strategies.

In a time when the economy is predicted to shrink, in the budget the government's put out, I'm curious why the government would take an axe to this sector that's actually growing the economy. The creative sector, really, has been a leader in job creation. Our province lost about 68,000 jobs in January. I'm curious why we wouldn't be doing more to support a sector which is creating jobs, and one of the few bright lights in this very difficult time.

[1735]

As I mentioned earlier, President Roosevelt understood that in the Depression. President Obama does as well. But here in B.C. we're looking at a 50 percent cut
[ Page 14067 ]
in 2010-2011, 2011-2012, which will destroy years and years of growth and thousands of jobs.

As I mentioned earlier, B.C. is near the back of the pack in terms of per-capita support for the arts Canada-wide. With these cuts — and I'll make it very clear, because I know the minister didn't get it earlier — it looks to me like it'll take us right to the back. I think that's a shame. It leaves us weaker economically and socially and culturally.

I turn to a question that I wanted to raise with the minister earlier. I've been receiving e-mails while we've been having this debate from arts and culture groups across the province, who have either been watching at home or on the Internet at work or listening to it or being told about what's going on here today over the phone or through e-mails.

They ask me: "What about our arts councils, our local arts councils, which do so much to strengthen our communities, which do so much to strengthen our local economies?" I'm wondering if the minister can assure me that local arts councils will be able to apply for the same level of support this year, even though I know, based on his service plan, that they will not be able to next year because of the 50 percent cuts.

But hey, one year's better than nothing, and I guess the minister…. He asked me to start to "feel the love," I believe was his quote about this process. I'm trying my best, because I love the arts, but I'm not in love with the budget cutbacks.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I appreciate the lecture from the member about the importance of arts and culture. I know he's very sincere. I don't dispute the importance of arts and culture in this province. That's not what I think that we are debating. We are debating $15.1 million for arts, culture and heritage and whether that legislation should pass or not.

Our record, if the member cares to actually sit down and take a look at it, on supporting community arts councils — that's what the member brought up at the end of his question — is very, very good. In 2005-06 we added another $3 million to B.C. Arts Council capacity, and it all went to community arts councils.

His question, I think, is: "Will community arts councils receive this supplementary funding?" The answer is yes — just like the dance troupes, the book publishing, the theatre, the museums and all the other categories that the member has mentioned today. They all get their funding through the B.C. Arts Council. They will continue to get their funding through the B.C. Arts Council.

Next year — not the year we're in right now but next year — the B.C. Arts Council will have roughly $800,000 more than they have this year to provide to the arts and culture community, including community arts councils.

Again, I hope the member will perhaps take his foot off the pedal a little bit with his public communications on this, because the sky isn't falling. Community arts councils and other groups that traditionally get funded by the B.C. Arts Council will continue to get funded by the Arts Council under the same process that has been set up for many, many years.

I think that the member probably would be interested to know that just in the last couple of days, many community arts councils have been funded by the B.C. Arts Council.

[1740]

The Gabriola Arts Council received $4,500. In Golden, Kicking Horse Culture, the Golden district arts council, received almost $15,000 for operating assistance for their community arts council. Grand Forks, almost $7,000; Hope and District Arts Council, $5,959; Hornby Island Arts Council, $10,500; Kamloops Arts Council, $19,687; Kimberley Arts Council — too bad the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has left the House — $7,781; Kitimat, $19,000; Langley, $21,000; Logan Lake….

It's a tremendously long list of communities across the province, all the way across Vancouver Island, through the Lower Mainland, out the Fraser Valley and up into the Cariboo, over to the Kootenays, the Okanagan and up into the north, northeast, northwest. All of these communities are funded through the B.C. Arts Council.

There are too many for me to read out, unless the member wants me to. I could. The member can let me know if he wants me to read these names out. There are dozens and dozens of communities that are receiving funding through the B.C. Arts Council for community arts councils.

The Chair: One moment before I recognize you, Member.

I just want to remind the minister that it is not appropriate to refer to whether a member is inside or outside the House.

I think this would be a good time to, perhaps, comment that the Chair has allowed a very, very large degree of latitude not only in this debate but in some of the other debates in the supplemental estimates. I would just ask members to please remember that we are discussing the supplemental estimates on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.

S. Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I appreciate the reminder. Certainly, I endeavour to speak about the supplementary budget and how its effects will be felt in this next year. But I do think it's important that we remember what's coming in the future, because that helps arts organizations plan.

Our job here is to ensure we're doing due diligence with taxpayers' money. It's particularly important that we remember what's coming in the future, because if you were to give money to something that doesn't exist a year later because of funding cutbacks or something like that and they were planning a long-term program, it's important to keep that in mind.
[ Page 14068 ]

I thank the minister for mentioning so many communities across B.C. who benefit from the arts. We agree on that, and I think that's something that we need to hear more of from all members in this House. We need to remind many other communities and have them remind us, because they see the benefits every day in their lives. They see it in their jobs. They see it in their friends' jobs. They see it in their local economies.

That's why I think it's so important to raise the concerns about the minister's service plan, which has 50 percent cutbacks in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, and why it's so important to keep that in relation to this supplementary funding.

This supplementary funding debate provides a really good opportunity for us to see the benefit of that funding, because that'll allow us to see what happens when that funding disappears in the next year and the year after. We're providing funding this year which, according to the minister's own service plan, won't be there next year, in the 2010-2011 year or the 2011-2012 year.

This provides us a really important opportunity to recognize the value that the arts and culture play in our local economies and our local communities. So I thank the minister for mentioning those, because it gives us an opportunity to see that.

I've got this question from some friends in the arts industry. They wanted to ask what will happen with the supplementary funding for arts partners in creative development. I know that the next deadline coming up is April 2, 2009, or does that relate to this funding?

[1745]

Hon. B. Bennett: Good question. I took some advice from my knowledgable staff on this side of the House, and I'm informed that we don't know yet specifically what the situation is for this partnership. Our share comes out of the arts legacy fund, and of course, as we have discussed in the House, the interest rates for the arts legacy fund and the BC150 fund are not what we had hoped them to be.

We're not sure how that's going to end up. There's money there. We'll definitely be involved to some extent, and hopefully, it's something that the other partners are satisfied with. I can't give the member any guarantees, certainly, at this point about what our contribution will be, but we should know fairly soon.

Just let me take this opportunity to clarify something that I said earlier that turns out was not correct. I indicated that the $3 million that went to the B.C. Arts Council in 2005-06 went in its entirety to community arts councils. I got that wrong, and I apologize, hon. Chair and to members in the House, for that.

The $3 million did go to the B.C. Arts Council in 2005-06. That was new money, and that doubled the budgets of the community arts councils across the province, which was a very good thing. But not all $3 million went to community arts councils, which is what I said earlier. So I hope I've corrected that.

S. Herbert: I appreciate the clarification. I think it is very important that we get the facts and figures on the record, and I'm glad the minister was able to do that.

I think it also really shows how important arts and culture are in this province. Every little penny makes a difference for an arts organization, because they can stretch dollars like you wouldn't believe. Knowing many artists and many across the province and growing up in an arts family, you get to see how you can do so much with so little.

I'm curious just about the question around the arts partners and creative development. Of course, part of the Olympics discussion was around the idea that arts groups could dream big and could reach for the top in terms of creativity for 2010. I know the deadline here is April 2, 2009. I'm wondering when we'll be able to get some clarification when the arts community will be able to have an idea about that and also about…. Yeah, that's the question, thank you. That's all for now.

Hon. B. Bennett: There is an application process that's in place today and that is alive and ongoing. As I said earlier, the ministry can't commit to a specific number yet, but that process will go ahead. It will be adjudicated, and I believe there will be a decision on this in May and an announcement in early June.

S. Herbert: Thank you very much for that.

I had this question sent to me from an arts administrator in North Van. He wondered how the one-time-only supplementary "before the massive cuts to arts and culture come in 2010, 2011, 2012" funding would support the Arts Now program. I did some investigating. Maybe the member opposite might be able to clarify what he's speaking about.

[1750]

Hon. B. Bennett: Arts Now is a program of Legacies Now; it's not a program of government. I'm sorry that I don't have any more information for the member, but it's not something that we are responsible for.

S. Herbert: Great, I appreciate that answer. Certainly, there's a lot of concern out there, and folks are wondering about these programs, which they rely on. I think that would be helpful for the colleague in North Vancouver.

I guess the next question I have…. Really, I'm new to this process, but I think it would be helpful for me and my fellow members to get an idea of how many jobs something like this $7 million injected, as it says in the press release, into the B.C. Arts Council would create.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a fair question. It's an important question. What I can say with certainty is that the $7 million going to the B.C. Arts Council will ensure that
[ Page 14069 ]
all of those jobs that are out there in the arts and culture community will be secure — given the circumstances of the situation, of course. It's that stability and that certainty that this supplementary funding is providing. Essentially, it gives us another 13 months to work on the future out-years that the member has referenced several times.

I think the main point here is that we are actually securing the jobs that are there in arts and culture over the next year. As far as specific jobs generated by the funding that B.C. Arts Council invests in British Columbia, we don't have the numbers right now, but if the member would like — and he did ask the question, so I assume he wants the numbers — we'll go figure it out. We'll figure it out, and we'll get back to the member.

S. Herbert: I appreciate the willingness to look out for those figures. I've got a number of questions more. I'm hoping that when we return to this House next week, we might be able to get an answer to that question.

I think the reason I ask it is that when we see the job figures and we see the number of jobs being lost across the province lately, it's more important than ever that we recognize the industries that are providing jobs, that are creating jobs in our communities. Certainly the arts and culture industry is one of the leaders, as I mentioned earlier.

I've got this article here that Andrew MacLeod published in "The Hook." In it, Ian Case from ProArt Alliance of Victoria…. His argument was that $160,000, as he put it, would fund an entire organization. "'That would be enough to put on a festival that would generate employment for as many as 200 people,' he said. 'It would pay for a small opera or a symphony.'" He's making the argument that as the minister mentioned, the arts really do pay off in jobs.

[1755]

I think it would be very helpful for us to see the job figures so that we know what will happen in 2010, 2011 and 2012 if the budget and the service plan continue to state that funding will be cut by 50 percent to arts and culture.

Right now, I know, the minister spoke highly of the stability. I'm very glad that there's stability for a year, but for arts organizations, being able to know that funding is there for a year doesn't provide for the long-term stability that the B.C. Arts Council encourages its members to plan for. It certainly doesn't encourage the stability or sustainability that this government has spoken about supporting, and it puts people in real financial difficulty, at least in the future, and certainly in concern over the next year.

I think the other thing to mention in relation to this is that with the Olympics coming there are opportunities for artists, but as I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of risk. In the past for major events like this across the world, we've seen a real depression in terms of support for arts and culture organizations after these major events. People tend to spend a bunch of money on big-ticket items and be unable to continue to support their local organizations. Sponsorship money gets sucked into the major event — more difficult for the local organizations.

We're seeing that right now with the financial difficulties that we're facing. Many organizations are having real trouble balancing their books now because of the downturn. I think also of the endowment funds and how those have really plummeted as we've seen here with the spirit fund, I think it's called, that the minister mentioned earlier but especially with BC150, which went from $8 million down to $3 million.

We know it's tough out there. I would hope that this government could do better in terms of stability, as they've done in the past. It's not providing stability when you take what was core funding from the B.C. Arts Council, cut it and then put one-time-only funding. I think we need to make that very clear.

I'm wondering if the minister might be able to help me about what this looks like for a community like Fernie. I've got some figures here, which show that the Fernie Arts Council got about $10,000 in the last year but the Kootenay East area got about $83,500.

Basically, I'm wondering if the minister might be able to share with me how this kind of funding supports his community and his community's economy, because I think that's an important thing to get on the record, to justify our spending on the arts.

Hon. B. Bennett: For folks in the arts and culture community who realize how difficult the economy is, and I suspect that's got to be most people, I have to believe that one year of sustaining funding is a good thing. They'll think it's a good thing, and I think they're going to be quite happy with that.

I can think of some other industries in the province, in the country and around the world that would use an expression my father used to use: they would give their eye teeth for one year of stable funding like the arts and culture community is going to receive here in British Columbia.

I know that it's the job of the opposition to criticize, but I hope that they can start to feel better about this after our estimates debate ends, because I truly believe that arts and culture folks around the province are going to be extremely relieved about this.

[1800]

As far as the reference that the member made to the 2010 games and expenditures related to the 2010 games, there are going to be three billion people tuning into their television sets during the 2010 games, and what are they going to see? Yeah, they're going to see the mountains and the moose and the Mounties.

They'll expect to see that, but they're also going to see the Vancouver Symphony. They're going to see ballet. They're going to see some singers from far-flung places — perhaps Cranbrook, perhaps Williams Lake, perhaps Terrace or perhaps Dawson Creek. Who knows? Maybe Fort St. John or maybe even Powell River. Maybe there'll be a cellist from Powell River who will have the oppor-
[ Page 14070 ]
tunity to perform for those three billion people who are going to be watching the 2010 games on television.

There can't be a better opportunity for artists to display what they do than the Olympic Games. There can't be. So I suggest that the member and the opposition get on board. It's too late to be criticizing the Olympics and saying that they're bad and that it's terrible.

The 2010 games are going to be a great opportunity not only for artists but for our tourism industry. We're going to see tourism growth that's going to come for at least ten years after the 2010 games, like nothing we've ever seen before. We've got a great marketing plan in place, and it's going to create thousands of jobs. This is something that the opposition has always said is important to them — jobs for what they call ordinary people.

An Hon. Member: And yet they're opposed to the Olympics.

Hon. B. Bennett: But they're opposed to the Olympics. I don't get it.

An Hon. Member: They were opposed to Expo too.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's true, you know. They were against Expo 86.

I heard them referring to B.C. Place today. They don't understand the difference between an investment that returns jobs, tax revenues and good things — benefits for the province — and a deadweight cost that doesn't have any return to the B.C. taxpayer. I think they know what I might be referring to when I say deadweight cost. It's something that doesn't return any benefits to the taxpayers — $463 million.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Ah, the convention centre. Well, the convention centre is a little outside the supplementary budget that we're discussing here today. Suffice to say, the $883.2 million that the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre will cost — or less, but it won't be any more than that — will return thousands of jobs to the province. It'll return hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues as compared to, well, let's say the $73 million that the NDP government in the 1990s spent on their convention centre.

Incidentally, if I just grabbed my House binder — I'm not going to bother — I could actually find some quotations from the Opposition House Leader when he was a minister and also from then Premier Clark, where they're saying that a new convention centre in Vancouver is going to be the most important economic engine that's ever been created in this province. That's what they said, but they're not saying that anymore.

I'll sit down here in a second, but I will say to the member that we have forecast a 2 percent interest on the BC150 fund and the other fund. We don't know, frankly — I've said that earlier — what's going to happen with the economy. Heaven knows, we might be heading into something that we can't even envision, or maybe it's going to get better faster.

But 2 percent is very low, and we think we're going to do better than that, particularly by the second and third year. So instead of having around $3 million from those funds, there's a very, very good chance we're going to have something in the order of $6 million, $7 million or $8 million.

[1805]

But the opposition, I know, chooses to be that glass half-empty, and they choose to see the dark side of things, so they'll continue to say that the sky is falling and the world as we know it is going to come to an end after this next year. I'm more hopeful than that. I actually believe that we'll find a way to get through this and that we'll have a stable budget for arts and culture in this province for many years to come.

S. Herbert: Well, I appreciate the minister's walk down memory lane and discussion about anything but the question that I asked him. It was an interesting lecture, but in a time of serious challenges, in a time when artists are facing real difficulties because of the budget that's come out and because of the service plan that this minister has forwarded, I would hope that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts could actually focus on the questions that we're asking.

I know he likes to talk about: "Oh, the opposition always likes to criticize. Oh, they never like to talk about good stuff." Well, I've been talking about the good stuff for arts and culture. I've been talking about the wonderful impulse, the wonderful stimulus that the arts plays in the economy. I've been talking about all those things.

I know the minister started to say that we don't understand the difference between investment and something that doesn't return to taxpayers. I don't know if he's suggesting that the arts and culture world doesn't return to the taxpayers.

I certainly hope not, because his own ministry suggests through studies, the old Conference Board suggests through studies, and pretty much any good economist shows that when you invest in the arts and culture, you get a return bigger than you're putting in. His own ministry suggested that for every dollar the government puts in, they get $1.36 back in taxes. So these regressive cuts are probably going to leave us worse off than we were to begin with. It just doesn't make sense.

One thing the minister said was: "Get on board. The Olympics, the Olympics, the great Olympics." Certainly, there's going to be a lot of benefits from the Olympics. He suggests that they're the champions of the Olympics. I seem to remember that it was the NDP who got that thing started, but hey, let's not mess up a good story with facts, because the minister seems to want to grandstand.
[ Page 14071 ]

I would like to talk about how he suggested that this one-year sustaining funding is a great thing. "Everybody's so happy, that's all they should expect, and there we are." Well, we actually had this funding already. The arts-culture community already had that funding. It got cut, and now it's getting put back for one year only. That's not sustaining funding. That's one-time-only funding. Those are one-time-only jobs.

He talked about jobs. He wants to support jobs and says that we support jobs, and we do. That's why the arts and culture industry makes so much sense to invest in. I don't understand why this government doesn't seem to agree. Either they do or they don't, and I can't get a straight answer whether they do because in what he said earlier it doesn't sound like they do. I wish I would be corrected.

Again I ask: what does the funding that the B.C. Arts Council gives to the Kootenay area do for his community? I'd like to hear about the benefits it provides, because I'm looking for good news here so that we can argue about why this funding should continue and not be cut in the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. I want to help the minister so that we can get that funding back, because it's not there.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about my riding. I'm the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts for the whole province, but I have been the MLA for eight years for the riding of East Kootenay, and that is Elkford, Sparwood, Fernie, Cranbrook and all points in between.

We have a vibrant arts community in the East Kootenay. It's amazing, actually. For the size of our population, we have a great symphony. We have theatre in places like Cranbrook and Kimberley. It's not in my riding specifically, but I've gone to theatre productions in Kimberley. In fact, my wife was just at one the other day. Very, very talented, very committed people.

We have the Canadian Museum of Rail Travel, which Garry Anderson has built basically with his bare hands over the past 20-some years and which is unique. There's no other railway museum like it in the world, not just in British Columbia or Canada but anywhere. They've received funding from the B.C. Arts Council.

[1810]

Our Cranbrook Arts Council is very, very active in our community. A great symphony exists, called the Kootenay symphony, based in Cranbrook and that the Cranbrook arts council works with.

Perhaps not on such a grand scale as downtown Vancouver, but nonetheless, the commitment that rural people make to arts and culture…. As the member knows — and the member is not suggesting otherwise — it's very, very important to the people who live in small towns and smaller cities to have theatre, music, art and museums.

I'm happy to say that with this supplementary funding, with this $15.1 million, we're going to be able to continue to support all of those local arts councils. All of those things that I mentioned can continue into the future because of this funding. Once again, I'm happy that we're able to do this. I'm sure it is a relief to the arts and culture community across the whole province.

The Chair: Members, shall Vote 42(S) pass?

S. Herbert: No, I've still got questions. I've still got a lot of questions, as does the arts and culture community. I just want to make that clear.

I thank the minister for sharing about the great arts and culture groups in his constituency of East Kootenay. I'm wondering what would happen if this supplementary funding didn't come through to those community groups in his constituency.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm not going to deal with hypotheticals, and I'm not going to focus on the negative. As much as the opposition loves to do that, it's not in my nature to do that. This is a very, very positive initiative. This funding will provide sustaining budgets for community arts councils, for symphony orchestras across the province, for ballet, for artists — all of the things that I care about, that many members in this House care about and that, I know, my critic cares about.

All of those things are going to receive sustaining, reliable funding. That's the purpose of this supplementary budget. I celebrate that. I think it's a great thing, and I'm proud to be part of it.

S. Herbert: I certainly don't think it's sustaining funding when it's only one year and when it's planned that the budget is not going to be there next year. I will bring these questions back next week.

I would like to ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of Supply, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 6:14 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175