2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th 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)
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Morning Sitting
Volume 25, Number 5
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS | |
Page | |
Routine Business | |
Introductions by Members | 8019 |
Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 8019 |
Bill M216 — Builders Lien Notice to Owners Act | |
V. Huntington | |
Statements (Standing Order 25B) | 8019 |
Northwest Trade Expo in Smithers | |
D. Donaldson | |
Activities of North Fraser chapter of Habitat for Humanity | |
D. Plecas | |
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and work of Kermode Friendship Society | |
R. Austin | |
B.C. Youth Week activities | |
L. Reimer | |
Role of midwives | |
J. Rice | |
R. Sultan | |
Oral Questions | 8022 |
Laundry services at Interior Health Authority facilities | |
J. Rice | |
Hon. T. Lake | |
M. Mungall | |
Little Mountain development project and social housing | |
G. Heyman | |
Hon. R. Coleman | |
Provincial homelessness count | |
R. Austin | |
Hon. R. Coleman | |
School district funding and bus services | |
S. Robinson | |
Hon. P. Fassbender | |
R. Fleming | |
Freedom-of-information process and access to records | |
D. Routley | |
Hon. A. Virk | |
Orders of the Day | |
Committee of the Whole House | 8026 |
Bill 23 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 | |
S. Fraser | |
Hon. J. Rustad | |
C. Trevena | |
Hon. N. Letnick | |
L. Popham | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Committee of Supply | 8032 |
Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (continued) | |
N. Simons | |
Hon. C. Oakes | |
S. Robinson | |
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2015
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
M. Hunt: In the precincts today is a class from one of the schools in my riding, which is Colebrook Elementary School. I would ask the members to help make them welcome.
P. Pimm: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine today. Laura Prosko is a director of community services in Taylor. She does a great job in the community. She’s actually a transplant from the Lower Mainland, and we could probably use a few more, if anybody is interested. I’d like the House to please help me make her very welcome today.
Hon. S. Thomson: It gives me pleasure to recognize a constituent who’s in the gallery today, Andrew Hay, who’s the vice-president of education with Okanagan College. Andrew does a great job. This is a great institution in our community and in our riding, and Andrew does a great job in helping to lead that organization. I’d like the House to make him welcome today.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M216 — BUILDERS LIEN NOTICE
TO OWNERS ACT
V. Huntington presented a bill intituled Builders Lien Notice to Owners Act.
V. Huntington: I move that the bill intituled Builders Lien Notice to Owners Act be introduced now and read for a first time.
Motion approved.
V. Huntington: The bill I am proposing today introduces a standard of procedural fairness to British Columbia’s law on builders’ liens.
When approved by a land title office or a gold commissioner, builders’ liens are a claim against the value of property or mineral title. Liens commonly interfere with property owners’ attempts to refinance, mortgage or sell their property. At present, British Columbia does not require the proactive disclosure of lien filings, and property owners are often unaware there is a lien against their title.
As property owners, most of us will, at some point, work with a contractor. The Builders Lien Act protects those contractors by permitting them to file a claim of lien should the property owner fail to pay for a contracted service. Should a contractor fail to pay his subtrades, the subcontractor is similarly entitled to register a lien against the property.
There’s presently no requirement to inform the property owner that a claim has been filed against the value of their property. It can be a rude awakening, especially when the owner had no idea there were outstanding financial claims for a contract he thought was fully paid.
This act amends the Builders Lien Act by requiring lien claimants to notify owners of their intention to file a claim against their property or mineral title. The lien claimant would be required to provide written evidence to a land title office or gold commissioner that the owner had in fact been notified. This act introduces a standard of procedural fairness not presently available to property owners in British Columbia.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M216, Builders Lien Notice to Owners Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
NORTHWEST TRADE EXPO IN SMITHERS
D. Donaldson: I’ll take local history for 800. The answer: Gitdumden. The question: what is the name of the wolf clan in Wet’suwet’en? Those TV show fans of Jeopardy out there will recognize the format. But this version was called Political Jeopardy, and those who visited the Stikine MLA booth at the Northwest Trade Expo May 1 and May 2 got to test their skills in four categories.
Our booth was one of 70 exhibitors and vendors at the annual trade show organized by the Smithers and District Chamber of Commerce. This year was one of the busier ones I’ve attended.
A new feature included an outdoor vendors show in the second arena, complete with the newest RVs on display. Once again, the diversity of businesses in the Bulkley Valley and Upper Skeena, large and small, was really quite incredible. Just near our booth, there was Seabridge Gold’s KSM mining project, the Wetzin’kwa Community Forest Corporation, Hy-Tech Drilling and just down the way, Hugs Healthy Organics — so lots of businesses based on our natural resources.
[ Page 8020 ]
Scattered around the civic centre were home-based businesses, and outside was one of my favourites — the extremely tall bucket truck of the Sitka Tree Service, owned by Dane Drzimotta, who won the chamber’s Young Entrepreneur award last year.
There were also many community organizations present, along with representation from all three levels of government, including Skeena–Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen. People took advantage to bend ears of their politicians. I heard from folks from Houston to the Hazeltons on a really wide variety of issues like doctor shortages, concerns about local school districts losing their autonomy, and natural resource permitting delays.
It was a great weekend, including the non-stop showcasing of local musical talent during each day. Congratulations to the Smithers and District Chamber staff — Heather Gallagher and Susan Bundock and all board volunteers. And oh, the draw prize winner from the Political Jeopardy contest was Aleida Vennard, who walked away with a pound of the hon. Speaker’s coffee from the legislative gift shop, along with a legislative travel mug to put it in.
ACTIVITIES OF NORTH FRASER CHAPTER
OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
D. Plecas: Habitat for Humanity has a worldwide reputation for “partnership housing.” Working side by side with volunteers from all walks of life, people in need participate in their very own simple, yet decent, home.
Founded in 1976 in the state of Georgia, the Habitat for Humanity movement now works in over 90 different countries. It is responsible for placing over 225,000 families in new homes around the world. Thirty years ago the movement came to Canada and now comprises 70 affiliates across the country.
Over the weekend the hon. member for Abbotsford-Mission and I had the opportunity to participate in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of the new ReStore facility on South Fraser Way in Abbotsford, which belongs to the North Fraser chapter of Habitat for Humanity.
Established in the year 2000, the North Fraser chapter has helped five families build affordable homes and transition into home ownership. They have also completed home renovation projects, which have helped existing homes get up to building code.
The new ReStore facility in Abbotsford, which is filled with great donations from hundreds of corporations and individuals, is a fun place to shop. It’s got lots of interesting stuff and bargains. And the bonus is that you know, with every purchase, it’s going to a very wonderful cause.
I hope all members in this House will find time to visit the new store in Abbotsford. I hope you will join me in celebrating Habitat for Humanity and all the good work they do in communities across the province.
FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER AND
WORK OF KERMODE FRIENDSHIP SOCIETY
R. Austin: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, is a preventable brain disorder that affects kids born to mothers who consume alcohol while pregnant.
In northwest B.C. we have some of the higher incidences of this in the province. I would like to highlight individuals and a local social service agency who are working hard to lessen the impact and one day, perhaps, stop it.
My constituent in Terrace, Myrna Stephens, had two children when she was quite young and at a place in her life that was very challenging. She drank and unknowingly brought Shania, who is now 19, and Clifton, 14, into this world with cognitive and behavioural problems that they have had to live with their whole lives.
But here’s the amazing thing. Myrna decided, along with her kids, that she would use their collective experience to help others. She volunteers as an articulate advocate by openly admitting her error in public and sharing what she has learned, in order to be a real example to others so they can avoid making that choice that she was unaware of.
Along with help from the Kermode Friendship Society, where she was taken under the wing of people like Karla Lindstrom and Lisa Lawley, who led the first active FASD program in the region, Myrna has learned some of the coping skills that have helped her kids to reach some of their goals.
Perhaps you’ve heard that kids with FASD can’t learn. Well, don’t tell that to Shania, who has graduated with a Rainbow certificate, or Clifton, who can play just about any musical instrument that he can get his hands on — and not just by ear but by learning to read music.
Adjustments and modifications have been made by teachers to assist kids with FASD. Friends have to know how to socialize and support kids with FASD. But with this awareness and a lot of love and support, kids can live a fulsome life.
I want to honour Myrna for her courage to go public and to all those at Kermode, who helped her grow up — her words, not mine. As she says: “Everything is connected in this world.” And with help, she has become a person who has raised awareness, as well as showing all of us that we must never write off anyone but see the great possibilities that are within each and every child born with this affliction.
B.C. YOUTH WEEK ACTIVITIES
L. Reimer: Today I’d like to stand and talk to all of you about recognizing some very important constituents, and those are the youth of our province. That is why this week we are recognizing them and their contributions via B.C. Youth Week.
[ Page 8021 ]
B.C. Youth Week is a provincial tribute to youth held annually during the first week of May. It is a week of fun, interaction and celebration intended to build a strong connection between young people and their communities and to profile the issues, accomplishments and diversity of youth across the province.
In celebration of Youth Week, the Industry Training Authority is highlighting four young apprentices who have found their niche and are working hard to build a career in the skilled trades. B.C. Youth Week will create opportunities that empower youth to be heard, recognized and acknowledged.
It was started in 1995 by a small group of local municipal planners and youth recreation leaders in the Lower Mainland. It began with a small handful of municipalities launching a new and exciting initiative to promote partnerships with youth, adults, businesses, government, schools and the media.
Now, almost 20 years later, B.C. Youth Week has become an international celebration to promote awareness of youth. It is an opportunity for people around the world to learn about — and from — the youth of their community.
During May 1 to May 7 youth in B.C. will embrace the spirit of Youth Week by participating in activities and events organized by youth for youth while honouring diversity and the many contributions that they make in their communities.
ROLE OF MIDWIVES
J. Rice: Today, May 5, is B.C. Midwives’ Day, an international day of the midwife, a celebration observed in over 50 countries that recognizes the incredible contribution to quality maternity care that midwives make around the world.
Midwives delivered more than 16 percent of the babies born in this province last year, providing an increased role in primary maternity care. But they do more than deliver babies. They provide primary maternity care from early pregnancy, provide counselling, and care through labour and birth to both mother and newborn for up to six weeks postpartum.
Midwife-delivered babies meant women stayed in hospital 18 hours less than the provincial average last year. It meant 42 percent less C-sections in the provincial average. These are outstanding figures, as research shows improved outcomes for both mother and child because of midwifery care.
But there is an impending maternity care crisis, with growing needs and a shortage of care providers. The maternity care shortage is forcing many pregnant women and families in rural and northern B.C. to travel hundreds of kilometres in order to receive essential care. Women often spend four to six weeks away from their families and support network.
This is problematic because research shows that the farther women have to travel to access care, the greater the risk for both mother and baby. Stats show travelling far distance for care is associated with higher perinatal death. According to the Centre for Rural Health Research, the addition of midwives to the care options available to rural and First Nations communities in B.C. would significantly improve the health status, and it would save the health care system significantly.
Communities lacking in midwife services include Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Kitimat, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Golden, Lillooet, Salmon Arm and Williams Lake. We have much more work to do in improving maternity services, and midwives are essential to this goal.
Thank you to all the midwives in B.C., in Canada and around the world. Your work is invaluable and so appreciated.
R. Sultan: It’s time for some plain talk about where babies come from. Burned into my memory is the moment in this very House, sitting right over there, when Joy MacPhail acidly told our Minister of Labour that he knew nothing about labour, which was more or less true.
As the member for North Coast has already pointed out, this is the International Day of the Midwife, and it certainly merits acclaim from both sides of the House. Our midwives are university trained, registered and regulated. They are experts in healthy pregnancy, birth and post-natal care.
Not so long ago, I had a visit from Magnolia Neumann, two months old. Magnolia brought along her mother, her grandmother and her midwife, Andreia Situm, trained at UBC. I was told most births in B.C. are amenable to midwifery care. Last year about 18 percent were in that category, but that’s not as much as places like Holland and New Zealand, where it can be as high as 70 percent.
There is a particular need, as the member opposite has already pointed out, when obstetricians can be hard to find, such as in northern B.C., rural B.C. and First Nations communities. Magnolia told me that, while it took 44 hours for her to emerge, her midwife did a great job. We need more of them. The UBC program recently doubled its enrolment. Three cheers for maternity.
Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Minister of Health would beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Members. As mentioned by members on both sides of the House, today has been proclaimed B.C. Midwives Day, and joining us in the gallery is the executive director of the Association
[ Page 8022 ]
of B.C. Midwives, Ganga Jolicoeur, and midwife Luba Lyons-Richardson.
Luba was a founding member and president of the College of Midwives of B.C. from 1995 to 2002 and is currently co-head of the midwifery department here in Victoria and a clinical assistant professor for the division of midwifery at UBC.
I would ask the House to please make them both extremely welcome.
Madame Speaker: The Minister of Education would beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you, Members. I want to introduce Steve Cardwell, the former superintendent of the Vancouver school board, who’s in the House today. He’s here visiting the Legislature as a board member of the Technology Education and Careers Council.
I know Steve dedicated a lot of his career to helping education in the city of Vancouver. I would ask all members to make him feel welcome.
Oral Questions
LAUNDRY SERVICES AT INTERIOR
HEALTH AUTHORITY FACILITIES
J. Rice: Community leaders are deeply concerned about the Health Ministry’s plans to centralize and privatize laundry services. In Vernon, where 15 family-supporting jobs are on the line, the mayor and councillors raised concerns about lost jobs, increased traffic and increases in greenhouse gas emissions. They know the value of keeping these jobs locally and for the community and the hospital. Why doesn’t the Health Minister?
Hon. T. Lake: As always, we want to make sure that we have the best value for money for taxpayers here in the province of British Columbia in shared services, whether that’s in health care or in education.
Interior Health Authority has put out a request for solutions, looking at whether it would, in fact, make sense to centralize laundry services. It recognized, after working hard with the union…. The union was involved in discussions. The decision was made to go ahead with the request for solutions that would allow us to put more money in the front lines of health care, which is where we think the money should be spent.
Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.
J. Rice: It’s not just Vernon. City leaders across the Interior Health region are speaking out about this plan. In Kamloops the mayor says he has yet to see a business case for taking 20 jobs away from his community, and he wants those jobs to stay in his local community.
Will the minister take the lead of Vernon, Kamloops and other local governments and keep these laundry facilities operating efficiently with the people working in them today?
Hon. T. Lake: Well, I can tell you that the mayors of Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton have all seen business plans about constructing and expanding acute care services in their communities: $400 million in the city of Kamloops; hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on the Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna; Penticton tower, about $380 million. Vernon has gone through a large construction capital project.
Of course, all of that means people were working, and we’ll continue to grow the jobs in health care as we, on this side of the House, build new health care facilities in every corner of the province.
M. Mungall: Well, community leaders know that no matter all the services and all the new capital builds that the minister just listed off, none of them will actually provide health care services if there aren’t clean sheets on the beds. That’s the truth of the matter, and it sounds like the Liberals don’t like that truth. Community leaders….
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Minister.
Please continue.
M. Mungall: Community leaders know that cleanliness is key to a healthy local hospital. They know that it is a front-line service, just like they know that local jobs are key to a healthy local economy. Outsourcing laundry will see 170 family-supporting jobs lost from communities like Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Nelson, Penticton. Those jobs could be sent to Alberta or the Lower Mainland. Why does the minister not want to keep these jobs in his own community, in his own hospital?
Hon. T. Lake: Listening to the NDP talk about investing in health care is truly, truly the definition of the spin cycle. That’s what we get on that side of the House.
The fact is that if there is a more efficient way of making sure that those laundry services are provided, then Interior Health and every health authority has an obligation to investigate that if that means that more money is put in front-line health care. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. I would rather spend money on endoscopes than washing machines.
[ Page 8023 ]
Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.
M. Mungall: Well, one thing is clear, from the health authority. This is not about efficiency. This is about capital and that these washing machines are necessary. They are a necessary part of the health care system to make sure that there are clean sheets on the beds and to make sure that outbreaks are not taking place. The fact that the Liberals smirk and smile and laugh through all of that just shows the value that they truly do put on the health care system.
This government likes to talk job creation, but when it comes to action, real action, all you can see them do is line up for the photo ops, time and time again.
Here we have 170 good-paying, family-supporting jobs, where people like Irma Stretch and Vicki Harris in Kamloops work. They work hard to make sure that patients from their community have a clean hospital and a healthy place to have surgery. But this government wants to cut their jobs, because Liberals simply can’t get their minds wrapped around the important work that Vicki and Irma do for health care.
Again, why doesn’t this minister want these jobs in his community and in his hospital? Why does he want to see Royal Inland Hospital have those jobs?
Hon. T. Lake: I’m acutely aware of the fact that there are some people who will be displaced if, in fact, laundry services are outsourced. This is a request for solutions. They are examining whether this makes sense from an efficiency point of view so that money can be put into capital projects.
I know the people in Kamloops are more concerned about having the clinical services building constructed, more concerned about having a patient surgical care tower constructed. That will create far more jobs and far better health care than investing in washing machines. We think that’s the right decision, but we will wait for the information before that decision is made.
LITTLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND SOCIAL HOUSING
G. Heyman: For 50 years the Little Mountain site provided 234 units of affordable social housing in a tightly knit community. Eight years ago this government sold the property, forced tenants to move out and promised new units would be completed in 2010. The new owner, Holborn Properties, began demolition without redevelopment approval at a time when housing costs were skyrocketing.
The minister recently trumpeted the opening of 53 seniors units on the site, almost 200 units short of the promised number and five years after the promised completion date. Some plan.
Will the minister ever deliver on the promise of 234 new social housing units at Little Mountain, plus ten units for Musqueam band members?
Hon. R. Coleman: Six years ago there were 6,000 more people homeless in British Columbia than there are today. Today there are people that may be on our streets that are curled up in a doorway somewhere, where a loved one is wondering where the services and help for them for housing and mental illness are coming from.
Back six or seven years ago, this government gave this ministry the money that would come out of Little Mountain, whenever it came, in advance, so we could go out and address this issue.
Out of Little Mountain today there are over 2,000 units of housing across the province of British Columbia for people with mental health issues, addicted and at risk of homelessness in British Columbia. In addition to that, the programs that are putting food and 24-hour services into shelters across B.C. also came out of the build to leverage that property.
I think when you leverage the change in thousands of lives on one piece of property, and as you’re taking some development time with the city that takes a little longer than necessary, to take that money and invest it in changing people’s lives who are on the streets of British Columbia was the right decision to do then, and it certainly is today.
Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.
G. Heyman: A little delay? Only that side of the House could be five years late, deliver just 20 percent of their promise and then brag about it. Eight years of vacant property, five years late, less than a quarter of promised new units built. Off schedule, off track and off target.
The community fought for staged development to minimize displacement of residents and keep the community intact. Yet this government neither sought nor provided that sensible safety net in its rush to off-load property and responsibility.
Will the minister tell Vancouver residents desperate for affordable housing exactly when the remaining units will finally be built?
Hon. R. Coleman: In the city of Vancouver there are 14 sites that are presently either completed or under construction, with regards to homelessness, mental health and addictions. That actually started from the vision of the member for Vancouver–False Creek when he was the mayor of the city of Vancouver and put up the first 12 sites. In addition to that, because we were able to leverage, we were able to go into the marketplace and save thousands and thousands of units across British Columbia, where we purchased properties and revamped them in
[ Page 8024 ]
order to take care of people on our streets.
In addition to that, we picked up 28-plus properties in the city of Vancouver for homelessness. The reason we were able to do that is this ministry was allowed to leverage the money given to us by Treasury Board to match up to Little Mountain. So the Little Mountain legacy project today is probably in the thousands of people and the thousands of units that have been helped by British Columbians.
At the end of the day, everybody that was on Little Mountain was housed. Everyone has been supported in the marketplace since. They have the right to come back when the project is complete if they wish to. But at the same time, we use that….
I know you don’t like the fact that thousands of people that were homeless on the streets of British Columbia are housed today. I know you don’t like the success. The success is this: 6,000 fewer people homeless in British Columbia today on the basis of using an asset of British Columbians in order to save people’s lives and turn their lives around.
PROVINCIAL HOMELESSNESS COUNT
R. Austin: Terrace has undertaken their second annual homeless count, and they’ve experienced a significant increase in the homeless population there. City planner Tara Irwin said of the count: “We can’t understand a problem unless we know what we’re dealing with.”
The minister surely knows that learning how many people are homeless in this province and why they are homeless will help guide policy and funding decisions, but he refuses to coordinate a provincial count. Will the minister admit that the political threat of revealing the extent of B.C.’s homeless population is the reason he still refuses to coordinate a provincewide count?
Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I should remind you of a few facts, hon. Member. In 2001 there were about 710 shelter beds available across the province of British Columbia, and most of them were in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.
Today that’s almost tripled in Vancouver. There are shelter beds across the province of British Columbia. There’s a very active emergency shelter program in communities across B.C.
What else we did, in places like Terrace and places like Campbell River and places like Nanaimo, is we put outreach workers on the street to connect with people, match them up to support and actually deal with people that were on our streets — get the numbers and understanding of people so we could actually change their lives.
Interjections.
Hon. R. Coleman: I know they don’t like that. I hear the member from Coquitlam chirping over there. I’m sure she was at the opening just recently of a new building for supportive housing for people homeless in Coquitlam that just took place.
Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for Skeena on a supplemental.
R. Austin: The fact is we don’t know how many people are homeless today in British Columbia. Despite the minister’s inaction, the Sunshine Coast, the upper Fraser Valley, the capital regional district, Metro Vancouver and the cities of Kelowna, Vancouver and Kamloops, among others, have all done homeless counts.
The minister’s own ministry report on homeless counts says that these “produce useful information for service providers and governments for planning and funding suitable programs to address homelessness.” Given that the minister surely agrees with his own ministry staff, why won’t he coordinate and standardize this effort to ensure he’s got critical information useful for planning and funding suitable programs to address homelessness?
Hon. R. Coleman: Well, maybe the member over there could just turn to his colleague behind him and ask him how he liked the project with supportive housing for homeless people in Sechelt that was built a couple of years ago in his community.
Maybe he’d like to go to Campbell River and find out the properties that have been developed in Campbell River, in partnership with the city of Campbell River, for homelessness and mental health and addictions. Maybe he would like to come down to Victoria and talk to the city about the properties they put up when we developed it for people with homelessness, mental health and addictions. They might want to go up to Kamloops and find out that we bought a building up in Kamloops that today — it used to be a problem bar — is a building for homelessness, for people with mental health and addictions.
We live in the jurisdiction with the most successful housing strategy in North American history. We have over 20,000 families on rent assistance. We’ve lowered the number of people on homelessness. We have outreach workers on the street connecting the people to health care and services, and we’re doing it with societies who work very hard with us in order to leave something for the people of British Columbia that most need it, and that’s people that are homeless in B.C.
SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING
AND BUS SERVICES
S. Robinson: Last Wednesday the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows school board passed a budget that will eliminate regular school bus services in that community.
[ Page 8025 ]
This is a result of this government’s $54 million in school board cuts. Because of these cuts, roughly 370 Maple Ridge families are left to make other transportation arrangements for their children. Some families could be forced to move just to accommodate for their children’s transportation needs.
To the Minister of Education: why are families paying more for everything from this government and getting less?
Hon. P. Fassbender: In response to the member opposite, I think she’s well aware of the fact that it was school boards that came to the provincial government, based on our funding formulas, and said that they wanted the flexibility to make local decisions. That is why the funding formula was changed. Across this province…
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Members.
Hon. P. Fassbender: …we have a Technical Review Committee that works with school districts. We have a student location factor that looks at a number of different factors, including transportation. This government continues to work with the boards to give them the opportunity to make those decisions.
What the member doesn’t talk about is that since 2008-2009 this government has invested $63 million in capital for buses across the province.
Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.
S. Robinson: Well, school boards from around the province also came to the minister saying: “Enough with the cuts. We can’t do it.” School districts are being forced to cut $54 million from their budgets. The reality is that the low-hanging fruit that the Premier thinks is just ripe for the picking is resulting in basic services like transportation cuts across, certainly, Maple Ridge. The Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows school board has had to address the shortfall of $1.68 million in its operating budget of $130 million. B.C. families are just having to pay more and are getting less.
To the Minister of Education: why are you forcing families to spend more money in order to get less service in their communities?
Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the members opposite are very clear on one fact. That is that this government has a fiscal policy that has resulted in three balanced budgets that save taxpayers of this province hundreds of millions of dollars because our credit rating is protected. We’ve heard it from the members opposite so many times. “Oh, you can’t do this. Tax more. Spend more. Don’t worry about the future.”
We are committed to ensuring, as we’ve done in health care, as we’ve done in post-secondary education…. Sometimes the hard decisions have to be made, but at the end, it is the taxpayers of British Columbia that benefit from wise fiscal management.
R. Fleming: We’ve got families in congested suburbs of Metro Vancouver who are going to face the elimination of their bus service. We’ve got families in northern British Columbia and the Fraser Valley who face huge fees if they want to try and hang on to their bus service.
In Abbotsford families are going to be forced to pay up to $300 per student or $500 per family starting next year. In Chilliwack families are going to have to start paying $500 per student or $700 per family starting next year. In Peace River $100 rising to $500 in 2016 just so their children can get to school.
My question is to the Minister of Education. Does he finally understand that it is his government’s $54 million cut, as well as the downloading of tens of millions of dollars of unfunded cost pressures onto school boards, that is now putting the pressure onto families and kids, who struggle with huge bills that they can’t afford to pay — that they’re going to have to pay out of pocket just to get to their schools starting next year?
Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I have said previously that when you look at the budget for education in this province, since 2001 it has increased $1.2 billion. That’s a 31 percent increase in the budget for education. In addition, enrolment in school districts has gone down by 75,000 students.
But we are clear. We are investing in the future. We will continue to look where priorities should be, and that is in the classroom to ensure that efficiencies that we’re asking for are reinvested in education. We are committed to doing that, and our track record is that it delivers the results that parents and teachers and taxpayers want.
Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.
R. Fleming: Well, the minister clearly doesn’t get it. What he calls efficiencies is what ordinary families are going to call hundreds of dollars coming out of their pockets every year just so their kids can go to school. Ordinary families in this province are already stretched to the breaking point trying to make ends meet.
We have high housing costs in this jurisdiction. We have higher hydro rates, thanks to this government, MSP increases, food, clothing for their kids, school fees every year, school supplies that families have to buy, sports equipment and team sales and fees. Now they face $500, $700 — whatever it may be — more out of their pockets
[ Page 8026 ]
just so their kids can get to school.
To be clear, school boards don’t want to do this. They don’t want to eliminate bus service. They don’t want to gouge families for hundreds of dollars. They worry about this.
The question is for the minister. Does he really believe, as the Premier has said, that the transportation needs of our kids are somehow low-hanging fruit in a school district’s budget? Can he really live with the fact that starting next year, kids who can’t afford these fees are going to be stranded and unable to get to the schools where they need to learn?
Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I clearly recognize finding efficiencies is not always easy. I understand that there are districts that are looking at their budgets. But let me make it clear to the member opposite. He’s picking numbers out of the air. I’m aware of one district that is looking at instituting a fee for busing, and it works out to 50 cents a day per trip for those students.
I’m also very aware, with the student location factor, districts are being funded for those families that cannot afford those increases. They have the ability to offset those costs, and I know they will be doing that. The members opposite can accuse us of preventing children from getting to school. That is absolutely not correct.
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION PROCESS
AND ACCESS TO RECORDS
D. Routley: One of the unfortunate efficiencies of this government is in writing things down and keeping records. They don’t like doing that. My question is for the Minister of Citizens’ Services.
The CEO of B.C. Ferries really doesn’t like it when people talk about B.C. Ferries — or at least when they talk about how expensive B.C. Ferries has become. However, in reply to a “no records” response we received for correspondence between himself, the B.C. Ferry Commissioner and the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Corrigan said that he’d much rather talk about B.C. Ferries than write things down. In fact, he said: “I’m not a big person for sending letters and e-mails back and forth.”
Does the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the minister responsible for freedom of information, encourage senior public officials to avoid creating records of important government decisions?
Hon. A. Virk: British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is widely recognized, not only across Canada but across North America, as having the broadest coverage.
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Members.
Hon. A. Virk: The Freedom of Information Act is quite clear, and I have offered, in the past, to provide a copy to the member opposite. The member can certainly take me up on that.
The FOI requests are processed by well-trained professional public servants. Their decisions are indeed guided by the act, and they release what can be released.
Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.
D. Routley: Mr. Corrigan went further than that. He said: “I’m very busy, and I find it more productive sometimes to just pick up the phone or have a meeting.” Clearly, he’s a graduate of the Ken Dobell school of management.
At a time when the Minister of Transportation said he wanted B.C. Ferries to address internal efficiencies, vacation programs, employees’ passes, management levels, and duties for imported Polish ships, are we to believe that Mr. Corrigan and the Minister of Transportation did not exchange a single piece of correspondence?
Does the Minister of Citizens’ Services encourage his cabinet colleagues to conduct important government business in this manner?
Hon. A. Virk: The member certainly needs, perhaps, a copy of the act. The act is very clear.
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. A. Virk: The act is very clear. When FOI requests comes in, professional public servants apply the act judiciously, and whatever can be released is released.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly I call committee stage for Bill 23, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 23 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; D. Horne in the chair.
[ Page 8027 ]
The committee met at 10:57 a.m.
On section 1.
S. Fraser: I apologize. My voice is changing. I’m going through puberty late. I’ll try to continue here without losing my voice.
This first section of the miscellaneous Bill 23 is addressing the aboriginal relations and reconciliation amendments dealing with the Maa-nulth treaty. A number of the Maa-nulth Nations are within my constituency of Alberni–Pacific Rim. I am interested in this.
I understood from a quick discussion that I had with the minister — and I appreciate that he was able to give me a little bit of information about this bill, although, in the estimates process I realize that’s limited — that this was largely a housekeeping issue. I understand what he meant by that, as a follow-through from the final agreement. There was an agreement made that this would have to be addressed — the issue of addressing the issues of enacting laws on the foreshore.
I would like to begin with…. If the minister could just explain: when this goes through, assuming that this goes through as part of the miscellaneous bill, what would the timeline be as far as the courts being given the authority that would be enacted through this bill? How long would it take, in reality, for the courts to be able to start playing their role?
Hon. J. Rustad: Just to start, I want to introduce my staff — Laurel Nash and Lloyd Roberts.
As we go through this, the intention of this bill, once it is enacted, is that the effects of this bill would happen immediately. In other words, the opportunity or whatever issues that may come forward — the nation would be able to enact on it immediately upon the enactment of the bill.
S. Fraser: Thanks for the answer. Just for clarification from the minister, on the ground the law is being put into place in the Maa-nulth Nations on the foreshore. I understand that fines could be issued, or whatever the type of penalty is, but at what point? My understanding of this section of the act is that this empowers the courts to play their role, following the Maa-nulth playing theirs.
I guess the clarification I’m looking for is: what is the timeline that’s expected? If this were to pass, for instance, this month, which I’m assuming it will, how long would it take for the courts to be able to be prepared, in reality, to do their role?
Hon. J. Rustad: The courts, of course, are doing this now in terms of municipalities. So when this is enacted, on application that would come from Maa-nulth, the court would be able to address it immediately.
C. Trevena: Like my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim, I’ve got some interest in this. The Maa-nulth First Nations are in my constituency — the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’ out in the west coast — and I wanted the minister to clarify for me….
This is giving the Maa-nulth First Nations the ability to have more control over their foreshores. Does the minister know what parallels there are, what similarities there are with existing regulation and legislation that the Crown already has over foreshores — or whether the Maa-nulth is planning something that’s going to be very different or whether it is just putting it under their own umbrella, as it were, rather than relying on what has already been in existence?
Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to note that these amendments are the equivalent to the Community Charter section 263.1 and Local Government Act section 267.1.
S. Fraser: As a housekeeping issue, this was agreed to by the parties as part of the treaty process. Again, as it was explained, I think, in the estimates process, this is largely an agreed-to housekeeping issue — just following up on that.
Are there other amendments that need to follow, that may come back to this House, akin to this kind of amendment? Is this just a one-off, or are there other amendments from the government’s agreement, from their side, that still have to follow? Or is this the only thrust of the amendments to be made?
Hon. J. Rustad: To the member: I actually wouldn’t mind a little bit of clarity around the question you’ve asked. Are you asking if there would be more legislation required in terms of the foreshore agreement that we have, or are you talking about the potential for any other type of legislation that may have to come forward with regards to the Maa-nulth treaty?
[ Page 8028 ]
S. Fraser: I was referring to the whole treaty. This is coming forward today as a follow-up to, in my understanding, the memorandum of understanding that was signed between the Maa-nulth Nations and the province, specifically dealing with foreshore issues.
Are there other memorandums of understanding, or does the memorandum of understanding that we’re talking about…? Are there other things to come forward that need to come to this House to be completed by the government?
Hon. J. Rustad: Although it is sort of, of course, outside of the scope of the bill that we have here, in interest of the question, as we continue our relationship with the Maa-nulth, we at this stage do not have anything else planned in terms of any legislation that may be required with regards to the Maa-nulth treaty.
S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification from the minister. Is the minister aware of what specific foreshore laws have been brought into place by the Maa-nulth that would then be followed through — through the court system, through this amendment? If the minister could let me know if he’s aware of what has been developed by Maa-nulth Nations.
Hon. J. Rustad: We don’t currently have a complete list of what the Maa-nulth are considering or have done in terms of the laws around foreshore, but we can ask them for that and try to provide that to the member.
S. Fraser: The minister has likened this process to what happens municipally. Is it anticipated, then, that the laws on the foreshore and violations of those laws will be policed by the Maa-nulth Nations? Is that the anticipation? Then if there were fines levied or penalties following, that would follow through in the courts? I’m not quite sure. It’s not clear how the process would unfold.
Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to note that the foreshore area actually remains Crown-owned and that Maa-nulth, when it brings forward its bylaws, would enact them in the same way that any other municipality would across the province with regards to foreshores.
C. Trevena: If the foreshores are still Crown land — this is the Maa-nulth’s authority over this land — will the prohibitions that the Maa-nulth will be able to bring in through this be any different than we would usually see for foreshores? I wonder if the minister has had discussions with the Maa-nulth about what their plans are on this, just to get a bit of clarity.
Hon. J. Rustad: It’s not our anticipation, in discussions we’ve had with Maa-nulth, that there would be any variations from what local municipalities would do. Also, the Maa-nulth, through their process, will make any of those laws public through their registry so that people will be aware of the direction that they may decide to go.
C. Trevena: In the Maa-nulth making this public, I wondered if there are variations from what are accepted norms for foreshore — how this is going to be done.
I’m just thinking…. We’re going into the summer. We’re already starting to see the guys going down to start fishing, so there are going to be people out in the area close to the foreshore. I’m wondering how this is going to get out — if there are any differences from what is traditionally, or has become the norm for, foreshore protection.
Hon. J. Rustad: I think that it’s important to note that, like a regional district, the Maa-nulth are responsible for business regulations, which must be compatible with the strategic-level plans approved by B.C. But Maa-nulth has enacted laws with regards to the foreshores that apply in their foreshores, and they have been posted publicly through their law registry in accordance with the final agreement and the foreshore agreements.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the Minister for being clear in the answers here. I appreciate that.
Is there a bylaw enforcement function developed by or through the Maa-nulth? Is that how these things will come about?
I’m wondering, again, for the edification of those within Maa-nulth Nations but also outside of Maa-nulth Nations in local communities. It’s one thing to post things, but will people be made aware of those that have authority to levy a ticket or however that would play out? How will that happen?
Hon. J. Rustad: I hope this will be able to provide the member with the information he’s looking for.
It’s important to know that the Maa-nulth laws that are applicable to foreshore areas must be consistent with provincial laws of general application and that the Maa-nulth Nations are required to consult with individuals ordinarily resident in the foreshore concerning laws that directly affect those persons.
S. Fraser: Just to follow up, then. Those that are not resident or…. I’m thinking, in my constituency, of Barkley Sound. There’s a lot of shoreline there. There are a lot of people from a lot of places that come that are not aware of, certainly, maybe even the Maa-nulth treaty or the Maa-nulth Nations or their authority they have in dealing with laws.
Does the Minister…? Is he aware? Is there a formal bylaw enforcement branch being developed? Will it be obvious to people that know that those who are issuing a citation or whatever have the authority? I’m just thinking in the interests of avoiding conflict.
Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to note that anybody who is considering activities or utilizing a foreshore anywhere in the province would be required to make sure that they are following the laws and the bylaws of a particular jurisdiction.
The Maa-nulth, of course, have reached out to anybody who is within their territory to let them know. They have posted the information, as well, on their website. We have it on our implementation website provincially, and it’s available, of course, through their government offices for the Maa-nulth Nations, for people to be able to go and see whatever the laws or the bylaws are that will be put in place with regards to foreshores.
[ Page 8029 ]
C. Trevena: Just to get a bit more clarity here and following up with what my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim was talking about, about the potential of…. We want to avoid any conflict happening, but they are very popular areas for fishermen and others to go out in the summer.
If there is any infraction of Maa-nulth law here, or their bylaws on the foreshore, we’re talking about effecting, as I understand it, the transference of authority to the Maa-nulth for looking after the foreshores. But when we have that authority for other jurisdictions, there is a bylaw enforcement officer role.
I think what we’re trying to find out is if there is that similar role for the Maa-nulth and, if so, how it is going to be made known that we have somebody who has the authority to issue a ticket if somebody is doing whatever they’re doing that they shouldn’t be doing.
Hon. J. Rustad: The question line that this is asking on here is outside of the scope of the bill. It’s part of the implementation that has happened in the past. However, having said that, for the member opposite, the provincial compliance and enforcement officials are able to enforce the Maa-nulth laws in the foreshore area, pursuant to the enforcement agreement.
S. Fraser: One of my constituents, the manager of the Peak radio, David Wiwchar, has just informed me that he’s watching these proceedings, so I just sent back that I would wave to him. I just waved to him. Sorry — not that I wasn’t going to wave to the minister, too, and his staff, but that’s okay. I can do that at another time.
I have a question about how this…. Whether it’s a municipal government or whether it’s on Crown land, the foreshore is a bit of a grey area that spans into the federal realm of authority also, certainly when it deals with fisheries issues.
Some of that actually involves the foreshore, too, as the minister is aware. Is there a role…? Since it’s a treaty process, it’s a tripartite agreement. This seems to be relating just to the role between the province and the Maa-nulth Nations. Surely, there would be, potentially, a role for the federal authorities, and some of the laws that may be infracted on the foreshore may well fall under the jurisdiction of the federal authority.
I’m just wondering. Is there a provision for that in some place? I haven’t seen it in the act.
Hon. J. Rustad: I’ll wave to the member opposite as well. It’s a nice friendly environment that we have here. It’s a reflection of, perhaps, a new change that will come over the Legislature for question period.
Once again, this is outside of the scope of this bill, but for your information and just to answer the question, it’s important to note that provincial jurisdiction is on the foreshore — that’s where the extent of provincial jurisdiction goes — and federal jurisdiction is out into the open water. So that’s where the difference is with regards to this and the implementation of those types of issues.
S. Fraser: Well, I may be mistaken, but I’ve dealt with an issue on the east side of Vancouver Island, near Deep Bay. It’s involving the use of tracked vehicles on the foreshore and the impact of that.
I’ve seen it on the west coast too, near Tofino, at Long Beach, where issues seem to be the concern or the authority of the federal government, under the Fisheries Act, in dealing with some of these activities on the foreshore, as they affect the fauna and flora affecting fisheries.
So am I mistaken there? Or is there not a role…? Again, couldn’t an infraction on the foreshore involve the Fisheries Act and, therefore, span into federal jurisdiction? I’m not sure that they have the ability to do what we’re looking at doing here provincially — for the courts provincially to be able to take this on. Is there not another role for the federal government to complete this loop?
Hon. J. Rustad: I understand the concern the member has raised with regards to it and where those divisions are and where there may be a grey area between them. I would be happy to have the member arrange with my staff to talk through those particular concerns, but I’ve got to bring us back to the scope of this particular piece of legislation, and that question is quite significantly outside of this legislation.
S. Fraser: I will accept that offer from the minister — thank you very much — although I am confused, if I may express my confusion here.
This is part of the implementation of treaty. Treaty, as we know, is a tripartite agreement. The federal government are part of that triangle, and this is a part of the function of the implementation of that tripartite agreement.
So is the minister saying that the implementation portion of treaties becomes a bipartite process? I don’t see how it can be separated out from the bill that we’re dealing with, because it’s a product of a tripartite agreement, which I believe still follows through at implementation stage. If I’m wrong, I’d certainly like to be corrected.
Hon. J. Rustad: The agreement, the foreshore agreement that was created, is a product that has come out of the treaty and that was in the treaty. It was specifically designed in there for the Maa-nulth to work with the province to develop this foreshore agreement, which we have done.
Specifically to this bill, because I need to draw this into this bill, this bill is about taking that agreement that we already have now with the Maa-nulth and empowering the courts to be able to enforce issues that come forward from the Maa-nulth.
[ Page 8030 ]
S. Fraser: Just for clarification, then, the memorandum of understanding that this bill flows from was only signed between…. The signatories were the province and the Maa-nulth Nations? The federal government was not part of that memorandum of understanding. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Rustad: Once again, this particular act is about furtherance or the implementation of the foreshore and the agreement, but the memorandum of understanding was signed between the province of British Columbia and the Maa-nulth First Nations.
S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification.
On section (3.2). Or do I have to wait for us to move to (3.2)? Are we still on (3.1)? We’re on section 1, so I guess it’s wide open.
The Chair: We’re on section 1, which includes (3.2), yes.
S. Fraser: Okay, thank you. It says: “An order under subsection (3.1) must specify the duration of the order, which may not exceed one year.” Can the minister just explain that? Is it consistent with what would happen, say, through a regional district currently?
Hon. J. Rustad: I hope this will provide the answer that the member is looking for. Section (3.2) just notes that it provides that if the court makes an order under subsection (3.1), it will specify a duration not to exceed one year. This is, of course, aligning with local government’s timelines, so it’s of the same nature that would happen with local governments.
S. Fraser: Well, just following through, I mentioned the regional district in my last question, and thanks for the answer. But the question now…. In Alberni–Pacific Rim the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, that body, has welcomed the treaty, the Maa-nulth treaty. We actually have Maa-nulth representation, full representation, as full members on the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district.
The regional district plays a role in the region for land use, zoning — that sort of thing. They have an enforcement function also — the ability and the authority to levy citations or fines or something for infractions.
Does the minister perceive an overlap here, or is there a bit of a grey area of authority? Or could there be repetition that may not be the most efficient way to deal with it? I’m not being critical here. I’m curious how this plays out, because as members of the regional district, there is a function of dealing with bylaw infractions on foreshore as it relates to the regional district’s role. There almost seems like a duplication there.
Hon. J. Rustad: You know, it is great, actually, to see the Maa-nulth working with the regional district so closely. That’s exactly what we hoped to see achieved with other nations across the province, and I know that regional districts are actually starting to move forward with that as well. Nisga’a, in particular, is one that comes to mind as they start working together.
Specifically with regards to foreshore, it’s just like any municipality or treaty nation within a regional district. They have their individual authorities. They have their individual responsibilities. I don’t see a situation where there would be a conflict.
Obviously, in terms of the broader regional district that may be outside of the treaty lands, there is an opportunity now for the Maa-nulth nations to be able to work with the regional district and try to harmonize, but there isn’t particularly a conflict or requirement for harmony between the two.
C. Trevena: I appreciate the clarification about the regional district, because likewise, the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’ were going to be part of Strathcona regional district, so it’s very interesting to see that.
I’m wondering about the penalties. Excuse me if this is, perhaps, a question that’s very, very easy. Are these penalties reflective of what the penalty would be for any problems on foreshores anywhere? Are they just sort of standard penalties, or are these specific penalties for the Maa-nulth Nation?
Hon. J. Rustad: I think we’ve talked about this once before. The Maa-nulth, coming forward, will be similar to other jurisdictions, other municipalities. And it’s important to note that the Maa-Nulth Nations are responsible for the business regulations which must be compatible with the strategic-level plans approved by British Columbia.
C. Trevena: So strategic-level plans means that the fine levels, the penalties are the same as they would be in other jurisdictions. That’s what strategic-level plans means? I see the minister nodding. I think that’s on the record that these would not be out of line with anything else, either less or more — that if anybody is infringing on the rights of the Maa-Nulth First Nations, the penalties they would face would be similar to any imposed by the Crown in any other jurisdiction.
Hon. J. Rustad: Just for clarity on this, the provision is modelled after similar clauses in the Community Charter and the Local Government Act.
S. Fraser: Subsection (3.3): “A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3.1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $10 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both.”
I guess, just a question about the fine up to $10,000.
[ Page 8031 ]
I’m presuming that is in keeping with current fine rates on foreshore infractions anywhere in British Columbia. If the minister could just confirm that.
Secondly, say that there was a fine levied on a foreshore violation, by the courts, of $10,000. Where would that $10,000 go?
Hon. J. Rustad: Once again, the amount here, the $10,000 in question…. This provision is modelled, as I said in the earlier answer, after a similar clause of the Community Charter and Local Government Act. The amount of $10,000 in the Community Charter was established, as it is the standard for general offences. However, the maximum fine of $10,000 is only used in severe bylaw infractions.
With regards to the money collection and where that money goes, I don’t have a clear answer on that at this stage, but we will get that for the member.
S. Fraser: I realize that my questions seem somewhat repetitive, but I was zeroing in on the fact that, in the case of (3.3), it’s specifically the court that orders. I’m assuming…. It looks like it was a court-ordered fine of $10,000.
It seems to play out here through the rest of the section that compensation is available to Maa-Nulth Nations through an application process to the court but that that’s not necessarily…. It’s the court’s discretion at that point if costs were incurred by the Maa-nulth Nation in the investigation, for instance, of an infraction on the foreshore.
I’m not quite clear. Is there a guarantee that there will be compensation if there’s a conviction, or if there isn’t a conviction, is there any remedy for the Maa-nulth Nations for recovering costs?
Hon. J. Rustad: I think the question there referred to the section (3.5) part, but I did just get an answer with regards to where the fine goes. The fine does go to Maa-nulth Nation. That’s who would be the collector of that.
To your question here at hand. Similar to the law applicable for local governments, this provision provides that if “a person is convicted of an offence” under subsection (3.1)…. I’m reading this under notes for (3.5). The Maa-nulth First Nation can apply to the court for compensation. In addition to any penalty imposed, the court may order the convicted person to either pay the applicable fine, etc.
So they can go after the compensation, and the costs are prescribed in accordance with section 132(2)(h) of the Offence Act.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that information.
What business or service provisions on the foreshore areas in the treaty lands would be regulated under the treaty? The minister has touched on this a few times, but is it anticipated that these will coincide with all of the existing foreshore laws in the province, or is there the potential for the Maa-nulth to develop a different series of laws or regulations based on traditional knowledge, history, whatever?
Do they have the authority to vary from the standard practice, the standard foreshore regulations that are in place provincially now?
Hon. J. Rustad: Once again, it’s important to note that the lands are not treaty settlement lands, but they remain under the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia.
The foreshore agreement that has been entered into between the Maa-nulth and the province empowers the Maa-nulth to be able to enforce bylaws on the foreshore, and those bylaws are comparable, of course, to local governments in what would normally be brought forward.
S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that.
Just a broad-brush question. There are other Nations in the treaty process that are on the coast. This process that we’re going through today with Bill 23 and the empowerment of the courts to do their job in accordance with the memorandum of understanding that was developed as the latter part of the treaty process with the Maa-nulth Nations…. Will this serve as the template for future final treaties and the implementation of those treaties for coastal nations?
In other words, will we need to do a memorandum of understanding in the future for those future nations that are coming forward? I’m thinking that the K’ómoks Nation is very close now to final agreement. Is a similar agreement of understanding being signed there, or can this just be done all in one, as part of the treaty, as opposed to in two parts here? This is almost a cleanup bill here for the treaty.
Will we now know that this is how we do things in the future and that this will just be built into the treaty, maybe citing the precedent set here?
The Chair: The member for Nanaimo seeks leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
L. Krog: I’m delighted today to ask the House to welcome to the chamber 28 grade 5 students from Pauline Haarer Elementary in Nanaimo. That’s a French immersion school. Accompanying them are their teacher, Ms. Nadia Elzinga, and four parents who have graciously come along today to introduce their children to how governance works in the province.
I’d ask the House to please make them all welcome.
[ Page 8032 ]
Debate Continued
Hon. J. Rustad: This specific piece of legislation is very specific, just for the Maa-nulth. It’s part of theirs. But of course, these are lessons learned as we go forward with other agreements — for example, the Tla’amin agreement, which has an effective date coming up here in 2016 for the full implementation. The foreshore is actually part of that agreement already.
The Chair: We seem to be straying again substantially away from things. If the member could bring it back to section 1.
S. Fraser: Thank you. I was just going to thank the minister and his staff. I am done with this section, and my colleague from North Island is also finished. I thank you so much for this.
The Chair: I thank the member, and perhaps I should have just let him speak.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
The Chair: I believe we need to call the staff for the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture perhaps can introduce his staff.
Hon. N. Letnick: We have Derek Sturko, deputy minister, on my right; Jim Collins, the executive director of B.C. Farm Industry Review Board, on my left; and Linda Bates, senior manager of legislation for Agriculture, behind me.
L. Popham: Can the minister explain the essence of what inspired the changes to this legislation?
Hon. N. Letnick: We’re making two changes. The first one, which is with this section, is Natural Products Marketing Act. The proposed amendments will enable marketing boards and commissions to require that their producer-members participate in a mandatory biosecurity insurance program and apply an administrative penalty for those that fail to comply. We can deal with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act later, if you like.
L. Popham: Can the minister tell me how long this legislation has been worked on? How long have the research and the consultation for these changes been going on?
Hon. N. Letnick: Most of last year, but really getting down to the details since late last summer.
L. Popham: Can the minister list the groups, the stakeholders, that were consulted with for this legislation?
Hon. N. Letnick: All poultry associations, all supply management boards, all regulatory boards including, of course, B.C. Farm Industry Review Board.
L. Popham: This legislation probably would have been very useful if it was brought in before the latest avian flu outbreak. I’m wondering if the minister has any comments regarding the speed of this legislation.
Hon. N. Letnick: Had these amendments been in place, affected producers following required biosecurity measures could have offset some of their losses through insurance coverage as well as receiving federal compensation for destroyed birds. Of course, they are entitled to a whole suite of insurance programs. I’m sure we’ll have an opportunity to canvass those when we come back.
However, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: The House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Hamilton in the chair.
[ Page 8033 ]
The committee met at 10:59 a.m.
On Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000 (continued).
N. Simons: Thank you to the minister. I hope we have an opportunity to just talk a little bit about the arts and culture sector.
I just wanted to start with a question around heritage, if the minister could explain if any of her ministry responsibilities include heritage, heritage properties or policy to do with British Columbia heritage.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Heritage properties and the heritage act fall under the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.
N. Simons: I did notice that. I was just curious if the minister could perhaps explain: are there any linkages? Obviously, culture and heritage are closely linked. The government website sort of leads people through arts and culture and then to heritage. It doesn’t go to forestry and then to heritage.
Is there a working group or a liaison between the two ministries to ensure that the cultural goals of this government are met through the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. C. Oakes: There are operations around the heritage properties. That’s how it is connected to Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. But I would comment that, actually, we share the same office with the heritage branch and do work closely because, of course, museums are under our ministry. We fund any of the non-profits that are heritage-oriented. Museums, non-profit organizations can access funding through community gaming grants.
N. Simons: That’s one of the reasons I thought it would be interesting to sort of examine why it is that heritage properties fall under forestry. I understand about the operations, but most of the funding, operational…. Even capital grants, I believe, go through the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I believe there’s even a section of capital funds available for heritage that is administered through the minister’s ministry.
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, that falls under the Heritage Conservation Act, which falls under Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. The funding is actually within that particular ministry.
N. Simons: In fact, I just checked. Most of the funding recipients are not exactly heritage, but they are non-profits that may have some heritage involvement.
Okay, so we won’t be talking about heritage today. I think it’s a good idea to keep that in mind when we look at provincial policy towards cultural development. When you think about the aspects of heritage that are part of our culture, you’d think maybe there is some role for that.
Let’s move to arts and culture. Can the minister describe the creation of Creative B.C. and its mandate?
Hon. C. Oakes: Unfortunately, the item that the hon. member opposite…. It actually falls under the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.
N. Simons: It’s sort of funny. I understand. I recognize that.
Would the minister agree that it seems many of the cultural programs in the province are spread across many ministries?
Hon. C. Oakes: We had the opportunity yesterday to talk about the creative economy and the opportunities. I’ve certainly studied a number of models, both internationally…. I think Creative Australia was brought up yesterday.
One of the things…. I think why British Columbia is so successful when it comes to the arts is because we have a number of ministries that are reflecting and taking action on very critical aspects of the creative economy. I think it’s a testament to how this government considers the arts in British Columbia when so many ministries actually support the creative economy.
N. Simons: Thank you to the minister. Could the minister describe what B.C. Creative Futures is?
Hon. C. Oakes: We did canvass this yesterday, but I’d be happy to go over it again, because we’re really proud of the work that we have done around the Creative Futures strategy.
Again, we’ve invested $113 million for a new campus for the Emily Carr University of Arts and Design. This is dedicated to visual arts, media arts and design. The new design will be built at the Great Northern Way site near False Creek, with construction scheduled to begin spring of this year and be completed in 2017.
We’ve also put $4.5 million a year toward increased youth engagement in the arts. These programs really increase exposure to professional artists and the arts in B.C. schools. We’ve got a lot of touring programs that we offer. We have programs, such as DASH programs, that really look at vulnerable school districts to support arts and sports and culture.
We have $1.7 million for scholarships and job experience. That also includes 272 scholarships, 134 early career development placements. Funding has been expanded to early career development placements by 25 percent due
[ Page 8034 ]
to high demand. As well, we put in $2.5 million for the formation of Creative B.C. We canvassed that that belongs in Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.
In total, our ministry invests $60 million in the arts.
N. Simons: It’s nice to hear what those numbers are. In reality…. It’s important to tour, and I like that idea a lot. I think there are some really good programs that the minister is responsible for.
I’d like to see how they determine what funding they receive and what performance measures they use to ascertain whether those programs are really meeting the needs of our communities. So could the minister perhaps describe the Artists in the Classroom program — the funding associated with it and the number of children who will be exposed to that particular program?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. One of the great partnerships that our government has is with the B.C. Arts Council. We provide $24 million annually to the B.C. Arts Council. The Artists in the Classroom program is one of the programs that they do support, with $500,000. Really, it’s a residency program delivered by artists to connect in the schools. It’s a peer review process, so it’s, again, through the B.C. Arts Council. Peer review is the performance indicator of how those communities are determined.
I could get back to you on the exact numbers of that, if you’re interested.
N. Simons: Thank you. I am interested. It shows a potential for really increasing people’s exposure to various art forms and experts.
The after-school sport and arts initiative — is that also administered by the B.C. Arts Council?
Hon. C. Oakes: The after-school sport and arts program is a partnership that we have with an organization called DASH. We’re very proud that we’ve been able to double the funding on that.
If I may, I attended a school several years ago in Prince George, and what really stood out was when I had the opportunity to talk to the school-aged children. A ten-year-old girl spoke so eloquently about this program, the difference that it made in her life.
It is one of those unique partnerships and opportunities for our government to reach out and partner with other organizations to make sure that we’re making really significant connections in communities and, quite frankly, making strong connections with the future generation and empowering them, through art and sport, to ensure that they’re confident individuals.
N. Simons: I note that approximately $1 million a year is contributed to the DASH program or part of the DASH program. Maybe the minister can describe where the funding is. That, apparently, serves about 65 schools. As the minister probably knows, the other cultural aspects of schooling in our elementary schools is often the first to go in budget restrictions. So the importance of exposing kids to artistic opportunities is more important now than ever.
Does the minister see any possible expansion of this program? We have 60 school districts, and this program is provided to 65 schools. So obviously, there is room for expansion. Does the minister see this as a priority?
Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, we do think this is a significant program, and we’re looking always at ways we can enhance that. The annual $2 million that we do invest currently in the after-school sport and arts initiative is allocated towards communities across British Columbia. We’re proud to say that we’re always looking at new opportunities to expand the program in school districts across the province.
N. Simons: Can the minister let us know if that program exists for schools that are on reserve as well?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite. Actually, we have a significant sheet I would love to share with you — we don’t have it here with us today — about how we’re supporting First Nations communities in arts and culture. It’s something that we’ve certainly identified as an opportunity when we look at our new creative cultural strategy for British Columbia.
I would say the elementary school that I talked about previously is actually Harwin Elementary. It has a high population of aboriginal youth in the school, and a lot of the vulnerable school districts that we do look at really reflect aboriginal culture. One of the things that really stood out for me — again, when I talked about this program — is that you had elders that came in and taught drum-making. The children would go through the whole experience where they would have the opportunity to dry the skin, and then they would make the drum. Then they would learn how to musically perform. They brought in the blanket culture. There were so many impactful things within this program reflecting on the specific culture, of what that reflects, what that particular school population is.
N. Simons: I’ve had the pleasure of seeing some of the drums that some kids made. It does seem like a good program that really engages. I just look at the whole province, and it would be something that obviously would be nice to see, how we could expand that. Clearly, it gets early attachment to culture and art.
My question has to do with some of the Arts Council funding that the province provides. How does the prov-
[ Page 8035 ]
ince communicate with the B.C. Arts Council with respect to program direction? What is the degree of autonomy of the B.C. Arts Council when it comes to deciding what kinds of scholarship programs, what kinds of initiatives they’re intending to provide?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The B.C. Arts Council is an autonomous organization that sets an annual strategic plan forward. It sets its own policy program direction, but I do meet with the chair of the B.C. Arts Council to discuss the great programs that they’re initiating throughout the province of British Columbia. But it’s a completely peer-reviewed process, and it’s artist-driven.
N. Simons: Thank you for the answer. What I’m trying to understand, though, is when we have scholarship programs, co-op placements, a program called creative youth initiatives…. That may or may not be part of the B.C. Arts Council or co-sponsored by the government and the B.C. Arts Council. Perhaps the minister could describe the creative youth initiatives initiative.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. As part of the youth engagement programs, we provide $1.6 million through the B.C. Arts Council. We also provide the Touring Council with $200,000. In addition, we also include the First Peoples Cultural Council, with $200,000.
Really, it’s an umbrella, under the B.C. Arts Council. Then these partnerships with these organizations, such as the Touring Council and First Peoples Cultural Council, are able to take that money and really go and reach across the province of British Columbia and bring in additional partners to make sure that the youth engagement strategy around the B.C. arts is fully maximized across the province.
N. Simons: My question really has to do with where the government mandate ends and where the artistic independence of the Arts Council begins. I’m trying to determine that. I think it’s an important area, to make sure that it’s not all just sort of a politically driven arts culture policy.
What I have here is a description of the creative youth initiatives. Now, it says here that the umbrella organizations, non-profit arts and cultural organizations, are the ones that will be, essentially, setting up this creative youth initiatives.
Is that an independent decision by the Arts Council to create an entirely new initiative specifically designed and titled creative youth initiatives? It talks about — I’ll just go on a little bit here: “We will create up to 50 large-scale, multi-year partnerships reaching a total of 6,000 students.” What are those?
Hon. C. Oakes: The creative youth program evolved out of the B.C. Arts Council’s strategic planning process. The B.C. Arts Council has a competition where they do a call for art galleries, museums, not-for-profits, theatres companies, and it’s all peer reviews. The government does not sit in the room at any of those decision points on where that money gets distributed. It’s all peer review, and it’s organized by the B.C. Arts Council through their various organizations and partnerships that they’ve formed.
N. Simons: The question — what I meant to ask perhaps was: how was it decided that funding would be made available to the Arts Council in order to engage in this particular type of initiative?
Hon. C. Oakes: Our government and our Premier increased the funds to be provided to the B.C. Arts Council. We’re very, very proud of that. Again, the B.C. Arts Council, through their strategic planning and policy development process, decides how they spend that $24 million.
N. Simons: Looking through this B.C. Creative Futures document, I have to say it’s somewhat confusing. It mentions the jobs plan. It doesn’t mention Creative B.C. — this isn’t like a trick; I’m just trying to figure it out, where everything belongs — yet it speaks to three particular goals.
If B.C. Creative Futures has three goals, and those three goals involve the other ministries besides Community, Sport and Cultural Development, how is all that coordinated?
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, it’s a testament to the value that we put on arts and culture in the province of British Columbia. We are currently working with a multiministry team on a creative economy, which is identified within my mandate letter, so it’s no surprise. We’ve been working closely with each of the ministries to put forward a plan on how we enhance and grow our creative economy.
N. Simons: Could the minister tell us who is on that multiministry team?
Hon. C. Oakes: There is a cross-ministry working group. Assistant deputy ministers in multiministries work collaboratively together on the plan. That includes Advanced Education; Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; and Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. It also includes trade and investment. Again, it’s multiministry, and we’re all looking at how we work collaboratively to ensure that we grow our cultural sector.
N. Simons: Is there such a thing as B.C. Creative Futures, or is that the cross-ministry plan? I’m just trying to clarify.
[ Page 8036 ]
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite. The Creative Futures document that you are holding is part of a strategy that we are working towards, growing the creative economy. We have a number of elements within cross-ministries to ensure that we are working collaboratively to grow the creative economy.
N. Simons: That clarifies things. You know, some people might say it’s just a broad coalition, and others would say it’s scattered. But I wouldn’t want to be the one to suggest that.
Maybe I’ll move on to some other questions regarding the ministry’s objectives in its service plan. The “percentage of B.C.’s major cultural organizations that maintain or improve their net financial position compared to the previous year” is one of the performance measures — performance measure 5. I’m just wondering: what are those major cultural organizations that the minister has described? What does she consider those major cultural organizations?
Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, thank you for the question. One of the fiscal, disciplined approaches that we have taken as we look at the Canadian arts database every year and look at identifying the top 25 major cultural organizations…. They’re sampled to compare the net financial position of the current year to the previous years. The percentage of organizations that have maintained or improved their position is calculated on this particular basis.
N. Simons: To clarify, there are 25 major cultural organizations that the ministry uses for the measurement?
Hon. C. Oakes: There is a Canadian arts database that, each year, provides that analysis to the province, so that can change from year to year. But it’s an analysis of the largest 25 organizations as identified through the Canadian arts database.
N. Simons: The target for 2015-16 is 64 percent. So 64 percent of major cultural organizations will not lose money. That’s the goal?
Hon. C. Oakes: This particular database and analysis just provide us with a level of resiliency for the arts sector. It in no way affects how we allocate funds. It’s really to see how the performance of that particular sector is doing.
N. Simons: Thank you to the minister. I just want to get my mind around this performance measure 5, objective 3. The provincial government is going to measure, to determine success or not, the financial performance of B.C.’s major cultural organizations.
A measure of success presumably would be that 64 percent of British Columbia’s major cultural organizations in the year 2015-2016 will maintain or improve their condition. That’s a measurement that the minister believes is an accurate measure of the cultural health, or one of the measures of cultural health, of the community. I’m still trying to get to: what are the major B.C. organizations that the ministry is measuring?
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, it’s funding through the B.C. Arts Council. It’s peer-reviewed, and it’s an indicator to determine the health of the particular sector by identifying the financial results from the 25 major cultural organizations. That number changes from year to year, and we would be happy to get you the list of the top 25 for this past year.
N. Simons: I wonder: how was that performance measure chosen?
Hon. C. Oakes: This process has been in place for eight years. It has provided us with some significant data over the breadth of the time to provide us with some benchmarking opportunities.
As the member can well imagine, when we talk about arts and culture, it’s such a diverse sector. We have this conversation often. What “cultural” means specifically in every single community across British Columbia is unique and different. Whether you’re measuring a museum, an art gallery, a theatre company, a ballet company, contemporary art or modern dance…. There is a wide array of organizations, and non-profit organizations, across British Columbia.
What we have done over the last eight years is to identify some tool to ensure that year over year we’re able to measure the stability of the sector. We do this through looking at some of the financial performance indicators that we’ve mentioned in this performance measure 5.
N. Simons: Considering that this has been done for eight years and there’s been benchmarking done during that time and you rely on historical data, how come the 2014-15 numbers are not in the document?
Hon. C. Oakes: That “TBC” stands for “to be confirmed.” We’re just finishing the year-end analysis. The report will be tabled next week, and they’re just going through the analysis right now. That number will be available next week.
N. Simons: Thank you for that answer. That explains that slightly.
I’m just wondering. If this is a performance measure that really measures the output, it doesn’t measure the outcome in the community, does it? The performance measure is all about the organization doing something or being successful.
[ Page 8037 ]
What measurements are in the minister’s service plan to measure the success in the community of the cultural programs that the minister is responsible for?
Hon. C. Oakes: As you can well imagine, again, with the variety of organizations across over 200 communities currently that are supported through the B.C. Arts Council, jurisdictions across the world have difficulty identifying and measuring that. We’re more than open to the member opposite. If the member opposite has some suggestions or recommendations, we’d be absolutely open to hearing that.
S. Robinson: I was listening very intently to the question and answer and just wanted to offer some thoughts and some learnings around what it is that we’re doing around the arts file. When I think about the investments that government makes in the arts file…. It’s really not necessarily so that we can have more cello players, although I know that the member sitting next to me would love for everyone to be a cello player.
The idea of investing in the arts is so that people have a sense of connection, a sense of community and identity. What we’re measuring or what we’re seeing being measured are what we’d call outputs — how many people are playing the cello, how many people are going to a symphony, how many people are attending a play? But are they feeling more connected? Are they feeling that they have a stronger sense of identity, a stronger sense of belonging? I would ask if those kinds of things are being measured at all.
Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite: again, we’re always open to your thoughts on how that would be measured. You eloquently talked about how the community feels connected. I think it’s always difficult how to measure how people are feeling and how connected they feel.
One of the things we’re looking at…. And I’m incredibly proud to be launching shortly what our cultural strategy will be, as well as our creative economy. That is about: how do we ensure we bring multiministries together to ensure that we’re really transforming and growing the creative economy?
I think the member opposite will be pleased. That report will be coming out this summer, and I think it will have an impact in communities across British Columbia.
N. Simons: One observation, perhaps. I’ll turn it into a question. The government does try very hard to ensure that people see the Arts Council as an independent, artist-run, board-run organization. I was formerly involved in the Arts Council on the Sunshine Coast. I think that’s important, and I’m glad the minister seems to recognize that as well.
Is there a reason, whenever funding is allocated by the Arts Council, that the British Columbia government puts out a press release as opposed to the B.C. Arts Council putting out a press release?
Hon. C. Oakes: It’s actually a joint response that goes out. Quite frankly, I think it’s an opportunity for MLAs on both sides of the House. I think it’s critically important — you can talk to the chair of the B.C. Arts Council; he knows how passionately I do feel about the arts — that the members on both sides of the House know what’s going on around arts and culture when those announcements happen with those groups in your community, that you have an opportunity to go out and support them and know the great work that they’re doing — and for us to say thank you in our communities for the great work they do.
N. Simons: Of course, being the cynical opposition, the question I have is more to do with whether or not it’s a real or implied separation between the ministry and the Arts Council. I think it’s more of a symbolic thing that the Arts Council, in my view, can stand on its own in terms of how it explains to the province what funding is being allocated by them. But that’s perhaps splitting hairs.
The Creative Spaces grants. What’s the current status of funding for that particular area? And compare it, if possible, to last year.
Hon. C. Oakes: We did not offer funding last year to the Creative Spaces grant, but we are looking at offering that this year.
N. Simons: Thank you to the minister. What might the amount be for Creative Spaces? I believe that this is a pocket of funding that is geared mostly towards the capital improvement of theatres and what have you. If that is in fact going to be made available, does the minister have a timeline or a projected budget?
Hon. C. Oakes: We do know that it’s a valuable program, because it does go into capital. In a lot of theatre companies and museums that is an area that we have heard is often difficult to provide funding through. Currently, the way that we fund through is community gaming grants, and a lot of non-profits don’t have the opportunity to apply for capital.
The way we do the analysis is we look at our overall budget, we look at the requests that are currently coming in through our ministry, and do the analysis that way. We do know it’s an important program, and we weigh it amongst all of the program requests that we have across the province to determine that.
We will keep the member opposite informed of that.
N. Simons: Is there any reason why the Creative Spaces amounts wouldn’t be part of the B.C. Arts Council’s allocation? Would it not be…? Is it a technical thing, or is it just not artistic enough? Is there a reason why arts groups have to go through a separate process to get funding for their capital improvements?
Hon. C. Oakes: I think what we canvassed before is through the B.C. Arts Council. We absolutely respect their autonomy. We respect, through their strategic planning processes, that they have extremely important programs they offer for artists and non-profits throughout British Columbia. What we always do in this ministry is we look at…. If there is ever any opportunity to increase funding to the arts and cultural sector, we take that very seriously, and we ensure that if there are additional resources, we are making that available to this critical sector.
N. Simons: I think we’re getting close to the end of my allocated time, which is fine. I appreciate very much the minister and her staff for being here.
The budget for the B.C. Arts Council has stayed at $26 million. I think the minister said $24 million. I might be wrong. What’s the relative increase or decrease from the last two years?
Hon. C. Oakes: In 2012-2013 the B.C. Arts Council’s funding was $16.8 million. We’ve increased that to $24 million. This is the highest level of funding in its history. This budget will continue to fund the new programs — such as art scholarships, youth engagement and early career development programs — which we canvassed earlier on today.
N. Simons: Does the minister know how funding for the B.C. Arts Council compares to other provinces?
Hon. C. Oakes: As well, what we canvassed earlier today is that…. I think British Columbia has a very unique jurisdictional approach to the creative economy. I think that we’ve looked at whether….
We started the discussion today about the significance of heritage properties. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources puts significant investments into heritage properties.
We talked about the importance of the creative economy and Creative Futures and the investments that the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training provides to the art sector.
We talked yesterday about the importance of film and television. Again, that’s funding we provide through tax credits, and that’s through the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.
We talked about Emily Carr University, and we talked about the importance of advanced education and how we support that.
What we haven’t talked about but is also interesting is that the Ministry of International Trade invests money in our Chinese culture in trying to expand and support things such as the upcoming Gold Rush Trail exhibit on May 13 — an opportunity for all of us to celebrate what really brought British Columbia so much success in communities across British Columbia.
And, of course, our ministry of $60 million.
It’s difficult, with the approach that British Columbia has taken, to ensure that as many ministries as possible support the creative economy. What is unique is to go and just look at one ministry and say, “This is what you invested,” and compare it to another jurisdiction and another ministry and say what they invested. We’ve taken a holistic, collaborative approach to arts and the creative economy, and we’re proud of the accomplishments that we’ve made.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada