Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $186,048,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are now here meeting to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If I might, hon. Chair, I’m glad to be here. I’m on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ, here at the people’s House, the Legislature, for the first of the estimates of this budget.

I’ve observed the estimates process from most seats — pretty much every seat — in this room, and it’s a process that I enjoy, especially if we’re able to ask good questions. I’ll do my best to provide good answers so that we can move forward on the good work that this ministry does.

I’m joined with a great team: my deputy, Silas Brownsey; on finance, we’ve got Tracy Campbell; Nick Grant, behind me, on tourism; Claire Avison on arts; Kim Lacharite on the sports side of things; and then a whole cast of characters, wonderful people working to support the ministry. As questions arise, they’ll sub in, sub out to make sure we have the best information available to the MLAs here.

And I appreciate the work you have to do.

The Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport…. I won’t go on too long, but I just want to say it’s humbling to take on this work as minister because I know the people who work in tourism, who work in arts, who work in sport, in heritage, get up every morning, sometimes very early in the morning, or work late at night for their love of their communities, the love of their business, their love of their province.

In a time of economic turmoil, of threats of tariffs and the rest, we know how valuable their work is for our communities and how valuable their work is to provide great jobs, to bring investment into this province, to give people hope, to make people laugh, to help people dream, to help people be more than they think they can be, whether that be on the sports field or in the arts or improving their business and what they do around heritage and the arts.

So I’m excited for the questions and looking forward to the work together to improve these vital sectors for our province. With that, let’s get to the questions.

The Chair: I now recognize the Member for Kelowna-Mission. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to begin by extending my congratulations to the new minister on his appointment and on his elevation to cabinet.

I am obviously not the MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport. I’m subbing in because she’s sick. This is obviously not my critic role, so I guess it’s the minister’s lucky day. With that said, I do look forward to engaging in constructive discussions to advance the interests of British Columbians, and I know that upon her return to good health, my colleague is excited to do the same.

Our province is currently facing significant economic challenges, particularly with the recent imposition of tariffs by the United States on Canadian imports. Obviously these measures threaten to reduce our real GDP by $43 billion by 2029 and could result in 45,000 fewer jobs. In light of these developments, around which we’re all concerned, it is imperative that we focus on growing sectors that can bolster our economy and secure and grow private sector jobs without being directly affected by such trade barriers.

Tourism stands out as a vital industry in that regard. In 2023, tourism generated $22.1 billion in revenue, marking a 12.4 percent increase from the previous year. The sector contributed $9.7 billion to our provincial GDP, surpassing traditional resource industries such as mining, oil and gas, agriculture, fishing and forestry. Moreover, tourism employed over 125,700 individuals, reflecting a significant increase. Notably, 92 percent of tourism businesses are small enterprises that play a crucial role in supporting local economies across British Columbia.

[1:10 p.m.]

Given that tourism services are not subject to tariffs, this sector offers a resilient avenue for economic growth amid current trade tensions. By investing in and promoting tourism, we can mitigate some of the adverse effects of these tariffs, ensuring that our economy remains robust and that employment opportunities continue to flourish.

I urge the minister and the government to prioritize support for the tourism industry, recognizing its potential to offset the challenges posed by external economic pressures and to help with economic diversification in communities across British Columbia. Through strategic investments and collaborative efforts, we can harness the full potential of tourism to benefit all British Columbians.

The Chair: Do you have a question for the minister?

Gavin Dew: I’ve just lost my page, which I will soon relocate.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If the member wanted a moment to find his page, I could respond.

Gavin Dew: Yes, please. Thank you.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I was just going to say thank you to the member for his opening statement. It was like he was reading my speaking notes.

I’ve got a rather long preamble here, that my staff have helpfully provided, with many of the same statistics that the member read about how valuable tourism is to our economy, how important it is that we get the job right to grow jobs in the sector. Certainly, we are in agreement on that.

If you’d like, he can read some more of my opening remarks about how valuable the arts and culture sector is and sports, etc. I’m looking forward to the discussion.

Gavin Dew: Having relocated my page, I am thankful that we’ve agreed that we don’t need to recite all the statistics and we can get right into the questions.

The ministry’s budget has increased from $189 million to $192 million, a modest rise of approximately 1.6 percent. Considering inflationary pressures, the sector’s recovery needs post-pandemic and the need for diversification and private sector job creation, how does the ministry justify this limited increase relative to other ministries?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think there’s no question dollars are tight everywhere. We’ve got to make sure that the dollars we spend go farther. I know folks in the tourism industry are very keen to work with us cooperatively to ensure even greater bang for our buck, whether or not that be through Destination B.C. marketing internationally, cooperative marketing with the sector. Really, in every way, we’re working across the whole ministry to make sure that the dollars generate more dollars, generate more jobs and generate greater community benefit.

There is a budget lift, as the member mentions, to bring us up to $191.478 million, a net increase of $2.521 million. That’s due to the shared recovery wage mandate and also to make sure that we can support the people that support the sector. That explains that budget increase.

Gavin Dew: In April 2024, government listed tourism revenue at $18.5 billion. We’ve generally agreed that tourism is an excellent opportunity to grow private sector jobs. Certainly, on our side of the House, we have often submitted that there’s been an inadequate focus on growth in the private sector by this government and an undue focus on continually growing the public sector.

So I would ask again, does the lack of significant new investment in tourism reflect a lack of genuine focus on growing the private sector by this government?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think an important point to make here is that the work we’re doing for tourism is in cooperation with tourism communities. So while the budget that we’re discussing here is one part of that, there are also quite large budgets in communities all across this province, funded through the MRDT, to help them in their tourism marketing, to help them coordinate with our province.

We have seen considerable growth in tourism in terms of revenues, in terms of jobs, coming out of the COVID pandemic. We’re just about back to where we should have been when COVID hit.

I think that speaks to the ingenuity, the entrepreneurship and actually a real strong focus within this ministry on supporting private sector job growth, in addition to making sure we’re growing revenues to help fund things like hospitals, education and the other things that we need to fund through our budget.

I certainly am excited at the opportunity to work with our partners all across this province to make sure we get alignment, get better coordination between the province.

Yeah, just to say that we’re keen to support the sector to grow. The member probably saw we’re on track for growth, and certainly I’ve been making it clear in every communication I have with our team, with the broader public out there.

We’re looking for those ideas to grow the sector, to grow tourism, to grow the jobs there. I had a great round table last week with industry leaders looking at these issues, looking at what some of the challenges are, looking at what pathways are to solve those challenges.

I’m eternally optimistic. You’ll find that about me. I’m tight on money but generous in optimism. I think those are good combinations in this ministry, and hopefully we’ll continue to see a pathway to stronger growth and a greater return for the public.

Gavin Dew: At a high level, we recognize the importance of partnership and collaboration, but let’s dig into some more specific areas of concern.

The B.C. arts and culture budget is increasing from $41.417 million in 2024-25 to $41.646 million in 2025-26, a mere $299,000 increase, or 0.55 percent. This minuscule adjustment fails to keep pace with inflation, meaning arts organizations are receiving less funding in real dollar terms than before. Meanwhile, the B.C. Arts and Culture Endowment special account remains frozen at $4.23 million with no increase, not even an inflationary increase, despite rising costs.

I would take the minister back to 2017 when his government on the campaign trail promised to double the B.C. Arts Council budget to $48 million. That promise seven, almost eight, years later remains unfulfilled.

If the B.C. government could promise in 2017 to double arts funding to $48 million, why eight years later is the sector still being shortchanged with a token 0.55 percent increase while other ministries see much more substantial investments?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think it’s important that we recognize the history of this. I think I was sitting on the opposite side where the member sits today. I remember back to 2009-2010, when the B.C. Arts Council budget had been about $20 million and then it got cut by the then B.C. Liberal government — I believe the Conservative leader was sitting at the cabinet table at the time — to $10 million.

We’re now over $40 million. When we started, 2016-2017, it was about $21 million. So we have doubled the budget. You’ve also got to consider that we now have an arts and culture infrastructure fund, which is funding arts and culture infrastructure.

[1:20 p.m.]

We’ve given large support for our festival sector, for our heritage sectors, huge support and infrastructure dollars for the Chinese Canadian Museum, for example, the Jewish Community Centre, for example. We’ve more than doubled in that sense.

I’d also say that we used to be last in Canada in terms of per-capita investment in the arts. We’re now No. 1 or No. 2 in all of Canada for investments in the arts. We’ve come a long way.

It’s not been easy. Arts and culture was not a priority of the former government. We had to claw back what we could, and now we’ve greatly increased the amounts of investment in the arts. In fact, I hear it in the sector all the time: yes, times are challenging because of inflation, but thank goodness we’ve made the investments we have, because they’ve made a real difference in the sector.

Gavin Dew: This isn’t question period, so let’s save the under-the-last-government stuff and focus on the eight years in which this government has been in charge and what it has and has not done.

Since the question wasn’t answered, I’ll ask again: when will the minister fulfil his government’s 2017 promise to double the B.C. Arts Council budget?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I certainly appreciate the question, and I’m always passionate about finding ways to provide greater support to arts and culture. I think we’re nearly at the doubling amount of $42 million at this point. You look back to about $20 million, and that certainly does it.

I think the member has to…. In talking of the arts and culture sector, it’s not only the B.C. Arts Council that funds arts and culture. We also fund it through gaming grants. We fund it through a capital program. We funded a special recovery mandate after COVID.

When you look at the total amounts, we would definitely be No. 1 in Canada, when you put those all together. That’s not even considering things like the Royal B.C. Museum and other places. We’re certainly always keen to find more ways to support arts and culture, and we’ll continue to look for ways to grow the funds.

I should note that one of the funds the member mentioned is really funded through investments. So it’s not that we chose to freeze or anything like that; it’s about economic return. Some years it’s a little up; some years it’s a little down.

Gavin Dew: While I recognize that there is a broad range of different funding mechanisms, the 2017 election promise was very specific: to double the B.C. Arts Council budget to $48 million.

Could the minister please, just simply, provide a date by which this government intends to fulfil its 2017 election promise?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m sure I’d get into some trouble with the Finance Minister if I decided to set future budgets for the Minister of Finance. I think the member knows — he’s been around this place in various roles long enough to know — that future budgets are decided at future times, and so I’m not able to comment on a budget that is not in front of us at this time.

We’re talking about the current year’s budget, and I’m proud of how much resources we’re giving to arts and culture at this point, especially given the huge economic challenges that pull on the provincial budget.

Gavin Dew: I believe there was a very specific past budget year, 2017-2018, when that promise was made. This is not future-looking; this is looking backward to a promise that was made in the 2017 election, to the B.C. Arts Council, for $48 million.

I’ll ask just one more time: will the minister commit that the B.C. Arts Council will ever see that 2017 promise fulfilled? Will it be 2027, 2037? When will that promise be fulfilled? Or are promises not fulfilled by this government on a consistent basis?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If you talk to the arts sector, they will tell you that having a government that has made us No. 1 in Canada — No. 2 if you look at Quebec — in terms of investments in the arts, over the whole of government, they’ll say they’re proud of that. They’ll say that this is a good thing to have in a government.

They’ll say that they’re glad that they have a partner in government that listens to them, that works with them, that finds multiple ways to support arts and culture, whether it be through the B.C. Arts Council, gaming grants, infrastructure funds or the special funds that we’ve created, the destination events program and others.

[1:25 p.m.]

We know the value of arts and culture in our communities. That’s why we support it, that’s why I stood strongly in opposition in the past to cuts to arts and culture, and that’s why I’ll continue to look for ways to grow investments in arts and culture.

The member might not know, but prior to politics I worked in the arts. So I see the value; I’ve lived the value. I’ve understood how important it is to have a strong partner in the provincial government, in philanthropy, whether it be at a city level or at a corporate level. I’ll continue to work with the arts sector but, indeed, with the broader partners we have across the province to find more ways that we can support arts and culture in this province, because our government believes in it.

I’m glad the member is asking questions about arts and culture because, frankly, they don’t get a lot of attention in politics. Some argue we shouldn’t fund arts and culture at all. I’ve seen that point of view. I’ve heard that point of view from some. I certainly don’t subscribe to it, because I know it generates great jobs, it helps us dream, it helps us understand each other, see each other and learn our province’s history. It helps grow jobs in other sectors as well.

You think of a great event that brings people out to a community, that generates jobs in the hospitality and the service sectors as well. And it really fits within the work we’re doing around tourism growth. too. So we’re looking forward to broad support for arts and culture and continued support for strong investment in it.

The Chair: I encourage the member, although they may not be satisfied with the answer by the minister, to avoid repetition in their questions.

Gavin Dew: Very well. I will close this line of inquiry off by saying that the argument I am hearing is that because the minister likes the arts and is from the arts, and because previous government bad, therefore keeping promises not important. That’s not a very strong argument in that regard.

Let’s move on to gaming grants, since the minister mentioned them. There has been a significant increase in gaming revenue in the province of British Columbia, yet there has not been a significant increase in gaming grants on an according basis. Could the minister briefly touch on why, and what those numbers look like?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ve been looking at the history of gaming grants. I remember we used to have quite strong support, back then, I think, around 2010. I’m sorry to mention the history. I lived it, so I think it’s important we understand. I’m not going to point fingers at who, what, where, but the government of the day decided to cut gaming grants in half.

There was an economic challenge in 2008-2009. I think folks will remember a collapse of the banking system, and the government of the day decided to cut gaming grants in half because they had a fiscal challenge, and they thought it was important to attempt, I guess, to cut off granting organizations, to put the money elsewhere.

Our government, despite the economic challenges we’re facing, has decided to stay strong with our gaming grant support — $140 million going out to over 5,000 not-for-profit organizations throughout all of B.C. These are important funds. They help sustain organizations and are valuable. That’s why we’ll continue to stand by them, continue to support them, despite the challenges and despite some efforts that have happened in the past to cut gaming grants to fund other programs. We’ll continue to support gaming grants because they’re valuable for our communities.

Gavin Dew: I see we’re still going to do the past-governments rhetoric.

Is there a surplus in the gaming grants account? Or have those dollars been fully allocated?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The gaming grants budget is fully allocated every year.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister confirm that? I have heard that the grants were undersubscribed.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No, I think, indeed, community organizations value these dollars just as we do, and the funds are fully allocated every year.

Gavin Dew: Could the minister please describe any changes in the formula driving the available funds for gaming grants vis-à-vis the revenues derived from gaming in the province of British Columbia, and whether any of those revenues are going to different places than they used to, or whether the relationship between gaming revenues and gaming grants remains stable relative to past fiscal years?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I understand the question. There has been no change in our funding formula and how we fund gaming grants within this ministry. I think that answers the question.

Gavin Dew: Let’s move on to a different subject, the tourism sector strategy. The tourism sector strategy budget is seeing a minor increase, from $25.908 million to $26.113 million, an increase of just $205,000 or 0.79 percent. This marginal adjustment suggests the government is maintaining the status quo rather than making significant investments in tourism growth and diversification to confront the challenges of a buffeted economy and tariffs.

Given that B.C. needs to offset economic pressures through a strong tourism sector, why is the government failing to provide a significant boost to tourism funding?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think it’s important that we recognize the economic challenge that we’re dealing with right now. I appreciate the member’s advocacy on tourism, because I’m very much in agreement. We are always looking for ways to support our tourism sector.

One thing I think is important to recognize is that when you actually get out and talk to the hotels, you talk to the operators on the ground, the tour providers and so on, to a person, they say Destination B.C. is doing very valuable work. The tourism industry feels well supported by the work that the ministry is doing.

There’s always room for improvement, no question. But what they say is they want us to support them to grow their businesses by sometimes getting out of the way, by sometimes reducing regulation, by sometimes finding ways to harmonize approaches. But rarely do they come saying: “Just give us more money.”

They say they want better results out of the money that they do spend. Obviously, we all do. But I think they are certainly looking to us to support their efforts, because they also invest a huge amount of money privately for tourism marketing.

They’re certainly on top of this, as is Destination B.C., around the shifting markets, the question of whether or not Americans are going to come to B.C. We certainly hope they do, and in even greater numbers than they have been. The sector has been growing year over year because our product is so good, the people that provide it are so good, and the approach to welcome people and invite them to come see our incredible province is also working.

I’m certainly keen to hear ideas for improvements and always interested in hearing from the sector, the member or others around areas they think we can see improvement. But on the budget side, we’re certainly working the best with the amounts we have, and we’re certainly working with the outside teams that have seen growth to their budgets through the strong growth of the tourism industry.

Gavin Dew: I hear talk of diversifying sources of tourism. I think we all hope that in an era past the current tariff threat, we will see a resurgence of tourism from all over, including from our neighbours to the south.

Is it safe to say, though, that through the Premier’s rhetoric, we have pretty much written off tourism from red states? Is there a plan to make up for that? And could the minister please outline that plan?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, we didn’t start this tariff fight. This is not a fight we want. This is a fight we want to end. We want the Americans to come to their senses and recognize that we’re good neighbours to each other, that we have a shared border, a shared family in many ways, a shared journey.

So, to every American who’s tuning in to this channel right now — I’m sure there are lots: we want you here. You’re welcome. Beautiful B.C., super, natural British Columbia. We’d love your business. No matter what state you’re from, come to B.C. We’ll welcome you. We’re welcoming people. Yes, we might be a little bit upset about what your President is doing right now, but we want you here.

And we’re going to continue to reach out to folks to say they’re welcome. In fact, I was just talking to some Americans, before we came here, out front. They were admiring our Canadian flag. They were saying that they were sorry for what their President has done, but they were really proud of how welcoming we are as Canadians, and they want to invite their family to come see what they’ve discovered, that we’re a great place to visit and a great place to invest and a great place to come back to.

There was a cruise ship here the other day as well. Great cruise industry — Americans coming through as well. They likewise said they want to be here. They feel welcomed here, and that’s why they’ve come here. We’re going to continue to do that work.

Gavin Dew: Touching on the cruise industry for a second, one issue we’ve heard significant concerns around is the effect of drug-induced urban disorder in both Vancouver and Victoria on worsening the tourist experience for cruise tourists and discouraging cruise lines from continuing to invest in making stops in Vancouver and Victoria.

Can the minister outline, on a quantitative basis, any indicators as to what effect the NDP-induced drug disorder has had on cruise tourism to Vancouver and Victoria?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, we want everybody who comes to B.C. to have a good experience. Whether it be downtown, whether it be back country,we want them to feel safe. We want them to feel welcomed.

I know my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, has been meeting with folks in the tourism industry, certainly looking at that issue, and I think, in terms of those responses, probably best to canvass it there.

But if the member is asking for an indicator that these are having an impact on the cruise industry, I can say that in 2024 we had a record cruise year. We had more cruise ships coming through than any previous year. So if the member wanted an indicator, that would seem to indicate that people want to come to B.C., that they feel welcomed in B.C., that they want to take cruises from B.C. or through B.C.

So, I’m looking forward to another good cruise year, and I’m looking forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to improve the safety of our downtowns and to make sure that cruise passengers and all tourists and visitors are welcome and feel good in our province.

Gavin Dew: Speaking of welcoming Americans to Canada, Taylor Swift was recently in Vancouver, and in the day or days immediately prior to her performance, there was a very unfortunate and violent incident at a convenience store just blocks away from the venue. For major artists and for production companies booking major shows, that kind of incident and that kind of concern presents a very real disincentive to booking into cities.

Again, can the minister share any anecdotal or quantitative evidence around the impact of downtown disorder, resulting in less major shows in places like Vancouver that are major tourism draws?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I can say that last year was a record year for events at B.C. Place, so in terms of bookers and people looking to come to use our venues, our convention centre as well, downtown Vancouver — huge interest. I’ve been hearing from people concerned that there isn’t enough space for them because it’s so well used, that there are so many conventions coming in that they’re wondering where they can go, and certainly, I’m referring them to other convention centres we have across the province and other places.

[1:40 p.m.]

People want to be in Vancouver. They want to be in B.C. They want to come enjoy what we all know to be true. It’s a great place to live. It’s a great place to call home, and they want to have part of that. I don’t blame them, because it is a great place.

Certainly, in terms of the Taylor Swift event, those were huge numbers for downtown Vancouver. A huge shout-out to the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association.

[Interruption.]

Sorry, was that Taylor Swift over there? No? Okay.

Anyways, you see the magic of Taylor Swift is still with us in the room. People want to dance. So I’ll shake it off, and we’ll get back at it.

But it was a great event. My understanding is the producers of that event wanted to come to B.C. Place both because of the improvements that have been made but also because Vancouver is such a welcoming place to host an event like that. That’s why she ended her tour in Vancouver, because of the hospitality we provide.

It was a great way to cap off a really, really successful year. So 2024 was a great year for events, and 2025 is shaping up to be a great year for events and conventions in Vancouver and across the province. I think of the Web Summit — thousands of people coming in, staying in our hotels.

Sorry, some people are having some technical difficulties over there. Turn them off or leave the room.

But it’s good news. I think we certainly see the benefit of those kinds of events in our province, and we’ll continue to try to attract them here and make sure that they feel welcome while they are here.

Gavin Dew: I think we’re all Swifties now. Certainly, my six-year-old daughter insists on listening to Taylor Swift every morning in the car on the way to school.

Sensitive question: could the minister please provide a list of any members of executive council who received complimentary tickets to the Taylor Swift show?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: None that I’m aware of. I didn’t go, and I know, certainly, it would have been a lot of fun. But I wanted to make sure…. Certainly, PavCo has made an effort to make sure that their community benefit has been built into their mandate now. It’s a change that was made a couple of years ago to make sure that there is a broader look at community benefit.

So the member might have heard about B.C. Pavilion Corp. giving tickets to charities, whether it be health charities who then auctioned it off to make money…. I can’t remember if it was the Ronald McDonald House. There was such a long list of groups that benefited from that work and more people that got to see that concert because of that. It’s certainly something we’re looking at for events, going forward. How do we make sure there’s a stronger community benefit and that we’re seeing the best return for the public?

Gavin Dew: I assume, based on the confidence from the minister, that he’ll have no problem providing a list of all the organizations and individuals who received those tickets?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t have that information with me right now, but certainly, I can ask the B.C. Pavilion Corp. to provide a list of who got those charity packages to donate for the Taylor Swift show. Not a problem.

Gavin Dew: And when can we expect that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would expect next week. It’s Thursday. They’re not here right now typing up the list, but I’m sure they’ll be able to get that to the member.

Would the member like it or the critic like it, or both?

Gavin Dew: Both would be good. Thank you very much.

I’ll move to another question, much as I would love to dwell on Taylor Swift and sing Taylor Swift. I can’t sing very well, and I don’t really want to be on No Context for that.

To the next question, the sports and creative sector budget is seeing only a 0.4 percent increase from $27.117 million to $27.239 million, a change of just $122,000. Within this, the sports budget grows by just 0.44 percent while the creative sector receives a mere $18,000 increase, 0.49 percent.

Why is the government barely increasing their budgets by less than 0.5 percent, leaving them behind in real-dollar terms due to inflation? Is the minister okay with defunding the sports and creative sectors?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think, certainly, when it comes to sport, when it comes to the creative sector, we’re proud of our investments. I don’t think it’s defunding to provide over $50 million to the sports sector. It’s hardly defunding to provide over $130 million on the arts and creative sectors. It’s actually strong investments.

I think it’s interesting…. I know we’re into the estimates process now. Some of the arguments that I heard not that long ago in the Legislature around this budget were that we needed to cut the budget, that we were spending too much. And now that we’re in this room, we’re not spending enough.

I’m proud of what we’ve done. I’m proud of the effort the team makes to make sure the dollars go farther. There’s only so much money in the world, and it’s easy to just say: “Spend more, spend more, spend more.” We’re also saying that we need to spend wisely and that we need to make sure that the money goes as far as it can go, because in the end, it’s the public’s money.

So I appreciate the advocacy to spend more, but I also think we need to make sure that it goes farther. That’s what we’re working on in this ministry.

Gavin Dew: Certainly, investing in sectors that can grow the economy and grow private sector jobs is something we want to see. I would politely correct the minister’s math in that when there is less money in real-dollar terms, that means that you are defunding or reducing funding.

So can the minister again confirm…? When the math is that there is less money in real-dollar terms, because inflation means things cost more and you can buy less things, and the rate of increase is less than inflation, is the minister okay with defunding the sports and creative sectors?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m proud of investing in the arts. I’m proud of investing in sports. I’m proud of investing in the creative sector. We’ll continue to look for ways to boost support, whether it’s through policy, through how we spend our money or other ideas that the sectors may bring to us.

They are valuable for our province. They grow jobs, but they also grow good lives and give people opportunities to excel, to dream, to become better people, to become better neighbours. That’s why we make the strong investments that we do.

Gavin Dew: I’ll move to a different question, which revisits a prior question around gaming grants.

Can the minister please explain what the share of gaming revenue going to gaming grants is, relative to the share of gaming revenue going to the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Ltd.?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I understand the question. I think the appropriate place for that question is likely the Ministry of Finance, as that special account the member mentions is not under this ministry.

Gavin Dew: Well, I expect that there may be more details available in Finance.

I did just want to confirm: is it the minister’s understanding that there has been a shift away from gaming grants and toward First Nations revenue sharing? And to what extent, numerically?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m happy to answer questions around the gaming grants and the budget that we provide within our ministry. If the member wants to debate how money is shifted from one pocket to another within the Ministry of Finance, that’s, again, probably why the question should be directed to the Minister of Finance.

Gavin Dew: I’ll take that as the minister does not know.

Let’s talk about short-term rentals and their implications for tourism. This government introduced short-term rental regulations with the intent to increase housing availability, but in jurisdictions like, for example, Parksville, where 40 percent of tourist accommodations rely on short-term rentals, these rules have negatively impacted the tourism sector.

[1:50 p.m.]

Did the government consult with local businesses and tourism operators in such communities before implementing these regulations, and has it consulted since?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The short-term rental legislation — that’s housed in the Ministry of Housing. So in terms of how the legislation was created, in terms of how the regulations work and why they made one choice or another, those certainly would be best asked of the Housing Ministry.

I can say that certainly I understand there was consultation with a number of the municipalities, and in fact there have been some communities that were exempted from the short-term rental rules that have instead decided to opt in. So they were not in there. Communities like Tofino and Osoyoos were exempted, but they’ve now opted in to build their community housing supply, even though they’re also large tourism communities.

Certainly, we’re always interested in hearing more advice and speaking to people, as I know the Housing Ministry is, around these rules. It was trying to balance out the issue of needing long-term housing supply. I think, certainly in Tofino and in Osoyoos, we heard from tourism operators who said they couldn’t find any housing for their staff. I think that’s why those municipalities opted in, but for more detailed questions, the Housing Ministry would be the place to go on that.

Gavin Dew: I’m not looking for housing policy answers. I am looking to understand the implications on tourism. I do represent a riding that has been materially impacted by the short-term rental rules that have been imposed on our tourism sector, so I will continue to ask questions about this subject.

What is the government’s plan to address the decline in available tourist accommodations due to short-term rental restrictions?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly happy to talk more about this with the member longer-term to get a better understanding of what he’s referring to. The statistics I have show that hotel capacity in Kelowna, for example, and in the region, was around 57 percent — so that there was capacity for visitors.

I’ve also heard of a large interest in using short-term rentals through the way that they’re designed now. People certainly can continue to do short-term rentals in their homes, and I think we’re seeing real interest on that side too.

But on the hotel side, which is certainly more around where we go, we’re always looking for more hotel investors and to build more hotel capacity. From what folks in the member’s region tell us, the capacity is there. It’s just getting people to use those hotel rooms which has been a bit of a challenge lately because of the fire seasons and the challenge of fire.

Maybe the member might have more specific to share.

Gavin Dew: It’s been my experience that this government’s one-size-fits-all solution to short-term rental policies is not working for jurisdictions like Kelowna. It has exacerbated a decline in tourism jobs and undermined our backbone wine sector. The city of Kelowna has made numerous good-faith efforts to work with the provincial government on balanced, made-in-Kelowna solutions.

Locally, in Kelowna, everyone seems to understand that the current policies simply are not working. In particular, there are concerns with the province’s refusal to follow the city’s request to carve out purpose-built, short-term rental buildings in specific short-term rental zoning that were developed, built and sold on the basis of being short-term rental.

[1:55 p.m.]

In one example, the Aqua development…. That project was developed over the course of 14 years, with an understanding at every stage that it would be used for short-term rental. It was developed for short-term rental; it was built for short-term rental. There are locks on the bathroom drawers to store extra toilet paper for short-term rental. There are hotel-sized fridges for short-term rental. There is an amenity package designed for short-term rental. The units were sold on the basis of short-term rental.

The city asked the province to carve out such areas for short-term rental, because that’s what they were zoned and built for, yet the province has taken away the property rights of owners in those areas and left many of them — retail investors, mom-and-pop investors — underwater.

Will the minister commit to go and meet with the Minister of Housing and address these kinds of issues where good intentions have been met by unintended consequences and bad results that have left everyday people underwater?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for his passion and for bringing his advocacy to the floor on this issue. Whether it not be an issue like this or issues that were raised last week in our ministry round table —with I think it was over 40 tourism leaders from across the province and then a conference of over 500 — we’ll always raise issues with other ministries that are challenging for tourism. I’m certainly happy to learn more from the member.

I am interested in that question. He said there was a problem of lack of capacity, but I’m trying to understand that versus the hotel rates, which are pretty low for the Okanagan. You know, 57 percent is not bad for a hotelier, but it has been a bit soft the last couple of summers.

That’s in part the wildfire impacts, the hangover of COVID, ongoing economic uncertainty, but I’m hoping that this summer — fingers crossed, knock on wood and all the rest — is a good summer for the tourism sector in the Okanagan, because a lot of people want to come to B.C. now. They’ve cancelled their trips to the United States. They are booking. They are making calls.

I certainly have heard from hoteliers and tourism operators across the province who are getting new interest from people who had not considered coming to B.C. before but are now deciding. One of them said: “Well, you know, B.C. is Canada’s Hawaii.” Okay, well, it’s just B.C. to me and a great place to be, but please come on over. Hopefully that helps grow the tourism industry in the Okanagan as well.

I look forward to further discussion with the member.

Gavin Dew: I would note it’s not just my advocacy. Throughout the entire election campaign, every local NDP candidate called for a made-in-Kelowna solution for short-term rental. Some of them even claimed that they had met with the Premier, and he had agreed to discuss that further. He then went on a podcast in the middle of the election and pooh-poohed any such suggestions from his own candidates.

So just bear with me, because I’m a little bit confused here. Could you help me understand whether the position taken by multiple local NDP candidates in Kelowna, in writing and on record, was accurate, or was it inaccurate, Minister?

The Chair: I remind the member that Vote 44 is what is under debate. Please ensure your questions are relevant to the vote.

Gavin Dew: I can make it relevant, if you’d like. Absolutely.

As it relates to the future of short-term rental and its implications for tourism in my community of Kelowna, could the minister please explain whether the commitments made by NDP candidates running for election in the last election were an accurate reflection of the policy and thinking of this government or whether the policy and thinking was something different from what local candidates were committing to repeatedly in writing and on film?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the substance of the question is: will I advocate for tourism communities? Will I raise voices that I hear where there are problems that have to be fixed?

I think, from the whole discussion up to this point, it has been clear that that’s my commitment. If there are real concerns, and if there are ways that we need to address them better, I’m certainly willing to work with colleagues to do that.

The principle of this is that we need to put housing first. That’s the top priority in this policy. On how it should be amended and how there should be a slight change to this or a slight change to that, these are the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport estimates. Housing estimates, for the detailed work of who they talked to, how they did it, why they didn’t do this — that’s one for bill debate.

I think there was extensive bill debate on this topic prior to the member joining the House. But I think estimates for Housing are still set to come. Certainly, that would be a place to take those questions further, as they are the ones who decide housing policy.

We’re always willing to provide advice on what might work or what might not work in terms of the tourism side, but further policy discussion around the short-term-rental registry, how it works or how it could work really should be taken to the Housing Ministry.

Gavin Dew: The minister made a point early on in this session of pointing to the integrated nature of the Tourism portfolio and how it connects with other ministries and other agencies and has just indicated that the ministry did in fact give advice on how short-term rental might or might not affect tourism.

Could the Minister please expand on what advice was given around the potential economic impacts and tourism impacts of short-term rental in different jurisdictions in the province? Would he be so kind as to make available any written reports that were developed at that time?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the policy development was really run through the Ministry of Housing shop — I wasn’t there at the time — or on the Ministry of Tourism side at the time. So I don’t have the back story of what the member is asking about. I think I would encourage him to follow up that train of thought with the Ministry of Housing, if he wants to, on the analysis they did.

I know there was extensive questioning in the Legislature, and it will all be on the Hansard. I’m sure the member may have already read through it; I don’t know. I would encourage him to follow those ones, because I don’t have that information here at this table.

Gavin Dew: The minister did specify that his ministry provided advice to the Ministry of Housing with regard to short-term rental. Will the minister commit to provide any and all advice provided under his tenure or the previous minister’s tenure to the Ministry of Housing with regard to the economic impact?

[2:05 p.m.]

If there was no advice provided or no economic analysis undertaken, will the minister accordingly let us know that no such analysis was actually undertaken before this very economically significant policy was introduced?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The advice I provided on the short-term-rental registry, which was recently launched, was to make it easy, make it simple, make it so that somebody who wanted to rent out their home, or the basement of their home, could do it in an easy way. I certainly know that a number of people, whether it be in the Okanagan or other parts of the province, are doing that.

In our consultation on the short-term-rental registry, that was our message: make it easy to do, keep the prices low, give people a benefit, a bonus, if they sign up early. We want people to be on a level playing field, one platform, and that it’s easy to understand, that people know how to do it. That’s the advice that we provided to the Ministry of Housing.

Gavin Dew: The minister appears to be answering a different question than the one I asked, which is: what advice was provided on the imposition of fundamental short-term-rental policies, not the registry?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we need to be clear that there are still short-term rentals in the Okanagan, and there are still short-term rentals across the province. The question I’d ask the member…. Try to understand. With hotel rates at 57 percent, the member seemed to suggest that tourism was struggling in the Okanagan because there wasn’t capacity.

In fact, the numbers continue to be good. They’re a little softer than they normally are, but I think the issue here is that we needed to make sure that there was housing for the public, that there was housing for tourism workers and that that was the top priority.

In terms of the analysis done around the legislation, I think, again, that’s an appropriate question for the Minister of Housing.

Gavin Dew: Sorry, but that’s not good enough. The minister has just huddled with his staff for three minutes and come back with absolutely no answer whatsoever. The question that I asked, again, was whether or not any economic analysis was undertaken by this ministry prior to the implementation of short-term rental restrictions. Yes or no? A simple question.

The Chair: The member may not enjoy the answer to the question, but our members are encouraged to avoid repetition.

Gavin Dew: If the minister will not answer that question, I will move to a different question.

If no economic analysis was undertaken before making decisions around the imposition or non-imposition of short-term-rental restrictions or of the speculation and vacancy tax in tourism-oriented communities, what was the basis for making decisions around which communities were or were not included?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, questions about the short-term rental legislation really should be given to the Minister of Housing, as I’ve said, I think on multiple occasions now, because they’re the ones that developed the legislation. They’re the ones that did the work. They’re the ones that crafted the changes to law. They’re the ones who talked to communities about it. They’re the ones who talked to tourism providers about it. They’re the ones who talked to short-term-rental owners about it.

I can’t say strongly enough: the legislation is under their ministry. If the member wants questions about how that legislation began, why they did what, who did what and where, that’s the place to go.

Gavin Dew: I’m utterly baffled by the idea that legislation with profound impacts on tourism would be undertaken with absolutely zero consultation or engagement by the Ministry of Tourism.

[2:10 p.m.]

Is that truly what the minister is telling us? That he, the Minister of Tourism and his ministry responsible for tourism had no hand whatsoever, no influence whatsoever, no reports whatsoever, no analysis whatsoever, no consultation whatsoever — that they were, in fact, completely frozen out of a conversation, with fundamental implications for tourism, in all different parts of this province?

Is that truly what the minister

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The ministry was engaged, but we didn’t create the legislation. We didn’t do the background research and policy work, in that sense, for creating that law itself. What we did do is we made a case for a number of exemptions which appear in the legislation.

For example, I think it’s Predator Ridge in the Vernon area, exempt on that side. I think there were changes reflected in the legislation, but I wasn’t the minister when the legislation was crafted, so I can’t speak to all the back-and-forth the ministers may have had at the table at that time. I wasn’t there.

I can certainly say that we’ve heard from a number of tourism communities that wanted to be added in. They were concerned that they had been exempted. I can speak to that side, but I would say, on the legislation itself and why the ministry made certain choices after we had made our suggestions, you’d have to talk with the ministry itself.

Gavin Dew: The minister may not have been the minister, but he has the entire ministry staff sitting behind him. Surely, he can ask them how the ministry was engaged, or was not engaged, in the process. Could the minister please describe exactly how, not just in broad terms, the ministry was engaged in the analysis and consultation that went into shaping this policy? A very simple question.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In my understanding — I think the member probably could look it up — the Ministry of Housing’s argument, and very much the government’s response, has been: where the housing pressure is greatest, that’s where the decision around short-term rentals was made, where there is the lowest vacancy rate, where there is the highest pressure.

Certainly, we argued for exemptions around mountain resort areas, rural parts of the province, communities like Tofino, like Osoyoos, but in the end they wanted to be part of this, so they signed on. So there were changes to make sure that folks could sign on.

In terms of how legislation is crafted, bill by bill, amendment by amendment, clause by clause, on this one, that was handled through the Ministry of Housing, but certainly we provided the advice we could, and they acted, as happens in government.

Gavin Dew: I will note that the minister seems to believe that the statute of limitations for him knowing things is the beginning of his being the minister, yet the statute of limitations for blaming others is ten or 15 years. I would encourage the minister in future to focus on the term of his own government or on the term of his own role in a ministerial capacity.

The minister touched on Predator Ridge and the importance of tourism there, on it being exempted from short-term rental. Could the minister please explain exactly why that was undertaken and whether there was any political dimension to exempting a swing riding?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that a number of resort communities have been exempted. I think Predator Ridge is one of them, Whistler and a couple of others. It’s really looking at housing that would not be able to be made long-term housing because of the location it is.

For further discussion on why exactly the ministry decided on one versus the other, that would be best set at the Ministry of Housing.

Gavin Dew: The reason I ask, of course, is that on numerous occasions, the basis for such exemptions has been stated as creating tourism jobs. In fact, creating strong tourism jobs at Predator Ridge was cited in a letter that circulated around Predator Ridge on October 7, 2024, in the middle of the most recent provincial election. The letter said:

“Thank you to the member from Vernon-Lumby for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and to Brad Pelletier and the mayor of Vernon for helping bring this unique situation to our attention.

“I agree the resort nature of Predator Ridge means it should have an exemption to B.C.’s speculation and vacancy tax similar to Big White and other resort communities. I’m looking forward to working with you after the election to fix this and ensure we create strong tourism jobs at Predator Ridge while preserving homes in the city of Vernon.”

It’s signed up by the Premier, and I’ll note that this was circulated, in the middle of the election, in Predator Ridge.

Can I just get an update on what the state of play is there on exempting Predator Ridge from the speculation and vacancy tax to create tourism jobs, as the Premier indicated he wanted to do during the election?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Sorry. I’m just trying to understand. I think the member was talking about the speculation and vacancy tax. Is that correct?

Gavin Dew: Yes, I’m referring to a letter in which the Premier specifically states that he wants to exempt Predator Ridge from the speculation and vacancy tax in order to support tourism jobs, which is very much this minister’s portfolio. This letter was circulated, in the middle of the election, to residents in Predator Ridge.

I just wanted to understand whether there was a more detailed strategy, around supporting tourism jobs in Predator Ridge, that came with this. Or was this merely another election promise? Perhaps the minister can dig into the robust policy analysis behind this announcement and convince me that it was anything other than an attempt to not lose that riding in the election.

The Chair: The member is reminded to wait for recognition from the Chair before continuing.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that Predator Ridge has been exempted in this budget, but in terms of the speculation and vacancy tax, that legislation is held by the Ministry of Finance. So for decisions around how that act is used or not used, it would be best put to the Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

Gavin Dew: My apologies.

Would the minister please explain whether any studies of any sort were undertaken that would support the Premier’s position with regard to Predator Ridge? If such studies were undertaken or such briefing notes were produced or any advice of any materiality was provided by tourism to the Premier to support this position, would the minister be so kind as to make that available, say, next week?

The Chair: Member, the question has been asked and answered. Next question.

Interjection.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Can you clarify for me how the question is different?

Gavin Dew: I’d be happy to clarify how this question is different. I’m asking specifically whether any material advice was provided to the Premier that would substantiate the claim he made in a letter that was circulated during the election in order to understand that it is based in policy and not in politics.

I think it’s a very different question than the question asked previously. I can see that the minister is conferring with his staff, and I assume that as he has previously been forthcoming in providing materials, he will be more than happy to provide these materials.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To my team’s knowledge, we don’t have a briefing note or material that was provided that the member refers to.

Gavin Dew: So just to confirm, no advice was produced or provided by the Ministry of Tourism that would substantiate the Premier’s claim that exempting Predator Ridge from the speculation and vacancy tax would support tourism jobs.

Can you please just confirm that for me, Minister?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, no materials were provided from this ministry, but there may have been materials or information provided from other ministries. That’s not our legislation, and so I would direct the question…. Hopefully, the member will take that up with the Ministry of Finance, if he wants to.

Gavin Dew: Let’s move to a new subject.

Many resort municipalities are struggling with labour shortages due to a lack of affordable housing. How does the government intend to address the worker housing crisis in tourism-reliant communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think there’s an example. Certainly, two tourism-dependent communities in many ways, Tofino and Osoyoos, they stepped up. And they actually wanted to use the short-term rental rules to provide better housing for their own staff. So they’ve moved to be included, even though they were exempted. They, with the Ministry of Housing, moved to take on the short-term rental rules as a way to provide better housing for their staff.

So that’s one example.

Gavin Dew: What efforts is the government making to incentivize workforce housing solutions such as employer-driven housing development?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Another example would be through our master development agreements we make with mountain resorts. We actually require a certain number of beds per employee in the master development agreement, so it can’t all just be condos for sale. There actually has to be workforce housing built into those agreements.

Gavin Dew: I’ll move to a new topic.

The B.C. NDP government committed to establishing a South Asian–Canadian heritage museum or cultural centre during the 2020 provincial election and reaffirmed this commitment in the 2020 and 2022 mandate letters for the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. In October 2023, the B.C. government launched a provincewide consultation to determine location, structure and scope. In December 2024, Surrey city council unanimously passed a motion to collaborate with the province.

Despite the government promises and public engagement process, B.C. Budget 2025 contains no earmarked funds for this project. Was this just an empty promise for political points, or should we expect to see a plan at some point?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d just say that the contributions of Canadians of South Asian heritages…. I’ll say heritages because South Asian communities in our province come from many parts of the globe. In my own family, certainly, that would be Fiji. But I know, whether it be India, whether or not it be down in the Caribbean, there are many South Asian communities in our province who have sometimes similar, sometimes very diverse, backgrounds, even within India itself, for example.

[2:25 p.m.]

We want to see those heritages valued. We want to see those stories told. We know that our province has had a history of — certainly in some of our bad days, our worst days — real injustice to Canadians of South Asian heritages. Whether or not it be voting rights, the Komagata Maru incident, there are many incidents that we look back with shame.

But there are also many incidents and stories of real victories, of real pride that we have and that we want shared. So our government’s gone out. We’ve talked to communities all across this province. We’re still in that process right now, an engagement process, to hear from British Columbians, to hear from communities about the heritages that exist or have existed in their communities.

I believe it’s Golden. I’ve been to their museum. The member opposite, the critic, might be able to tell me about it. Incredible small little museum with a room dedicated to the history of South Asians in that community: the lumber industry, the trains, the heritages within that community.

You look to communities all across the province. On the island, the tiny community of Paldi and its history. You have Vancouver — the first South Asian temple over in Kitsilano. So there’s been real interest.

I thank the member for mentioning the city of Surrey. Certainly, we’ve had good engagement from folks living in Surrey, as well, on this question. We’ve had engagement from the city of Vancouver on this question too. Both mayors of those two communities are excited about it.

We’re just in the — it’s called the — what-we-heard report stage, where we’ve gone out…. There’s a community group going out engaging with a few more communities to ensure we’re adequately hearing from the public about what they want to see, what are their priorities in such a museum or a cultural centre.

Once we finish that process, we will be producing a report to go out to show what the public has said, what they’re interested in, and we’ll engage the community further at that stage about what next steps could look like.

I’m excited about the possibilities. I think these are stories that need to be told. These are heritages that need to be valued and supported. We haven’t done a particularly good job, in my view, in this province, of recognizing different communities and what they’ve brought to us. This is one opportunity to right that issue, just as we’ve done with the Chinese Canadian Museum as well.

The Chair: The Chair will call a recess. If we could reconvene at 2:40, as sharp as possible.

The committee recessed from 2:28 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We are currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Gavin Dew: I will return to my line of questioning, which is regarding the promised South Asian–Canadian heritage museum, which this government promised during the 2020 provincial election, reaffirmed their commitment in the 2020 and 2022 mandate letters, launched a provincewide consultation in October 2023, and in December 2024 Surrey council unanimously passed a motion to collaborate with the province on this matter.

Shortly before we recessed, the minister provided us with a long and lovely soliloquy on South Asian heritage in British Columbia, which, while touching, did not conclude an answer to my question. It was: if the NDP truly believes in honouring South Asian heritage, why didn’t they commit even a single dollar in the budget to this promise, first made in 2020?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would say that actually we’re in process right now on the topic of Canadians of South Asian Heritages museum. We’ve been doing work in consultation with the community. I think the reference the member made to the mayor of Surrey…. The mayor of Surrey was advocating she wanted the museum in her community. I got a similar letter from the mayor of Vancouver.

That’s because we were in the process. We are continuing in that process to engage with community members to ask them for their feedback about what it should look like.

There are different kinds of museums. There are different kinds of cultural centres, their functions, their use. Some argue it should be a travelling exhibition that goes from museum to museum. Others very much…. It has to be a cultural centre that’s only dedicated to one community of South Asian heritages. Others say it’s got to be all of them. Some say it should be in one city. Some say it should be in another.

We’re in the process of gathering those voices. There will be a report released in the months ahead to share those voices and work with the community on what the next steps are.

But I should be clear. This is a project that is from the community for the community. Government is there to support and to help create the dialogues and support with people to have those voices heard, but it’s also got to be coming from the community too. This is not driven by me. It’s driven by the community, and our job is to listen and to facilitate as best we’re able to take the next steps. There are lots of different views around what this should look like.

I look forward to sharing the what-we-heard report so that we can then hear from the community if we got it right and then on what next steps we should take together.

Gavin Dew: What I’m hearing is listening, engagement, report. And we’ve been in listening, engagement, report for going on five years from a 2020 provincial election commitment.

Surrey city council has already pledged their support for the museum, but the province remains silent or undecided or won’t give them any clear indication as to what they plan to do.

Would the minister confirm: why is the government ignoring one of the largest South Asian communities in Canada, or does Surrey only matter to the NDP during elections?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not sure how listening to the community, talking with the community, engaging with the community, developing plans with the community could be ever characterized as ignoring the community. I know there’s an attempt to get political points here, to try and claim one thing — the sky is green, not blue; up is down; wrong is right — but the reality is we’re working with the community, and there are diverse views in the community about what this project should look like and how it should be delivered.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s important that, if you want to get things right, especially when you’re talking about cultures and communities that have been excluded, that have been marginalized, that have been ignored, you actually have to talk to them.

I know it’s easy to throw at the government, but if you actually talk to people who’ve been engaged in the process, it’s a respectful process of listening, of learning, of connections and dealing with, in some cases, challenging discussions within communities and within community groups about what should be or what shouldn’t be discussed at a museum.

Gavin Dew: The minister seems to be concerned that there are politics in the question. I noticed that the government launched a provincewide consultation in October of 2023, immediately before an election year. I’m sure there were no political considerations whatsoever in doing that.

For all the talk of engagement and of working with the community, my impression is that five years after this was first promised, the community might actually like to see the government deliver something.

Will the government commit to adding funding for this project in a budget update, or should we assume this promise is being walked back?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member heard the answer to the two previous questions on this, which is that we are committed to working with the Canadians of South Asian heritages to ensure that their heritage and their culture and all they bring to this province are valued and seen. I think that’s why we continue to do the work with the community, listen to their voices, listen to their advice.

The advice that I’ve been given is there are certain parts of this province where there have been strong South Asian–Canadian communities, where there have been or are lasting legacies that have not shown up in the consultation project thus far, where those voices have not made it through the table. So there’s more work the ministry is engaged on in ensuring that we get those voices.

I know people in rural B.C. want to be heard. And when you have a project where you’ve had a lot of advice and voices coming from very urban B.C., it’s important we also go out and make sure we hear from more rural communities that haven’t been engaged in this topic. That’s kind of where we’re at now.

That’s the way that we should do this work. Yeah, we can talk about politics and this, that and the other thing, but you actually have to do the work, and that’s what we’re doing right now.

Gavin Dew: I’m confused, because I’m hearing that the work has been done. I’m hearing the work hasn’t been done. I’m hearing there has been engagement. I’m hearing we have to engage. It seems as if engagement lasts as long as the government is unwilling to actually fund things, during which time they will state they are doing engagement.

Just so that we can get off of this treadmill of never-ending engagement and never-ending nice speeches, can the minister provide a clear timeline, in years, for when they actually plan to fund and build this museum?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We want to take the time to get this right. This is not a project that can happen overnight. And I think we’ve seen examples in the past where people try to do things all of a sudden, and the community is excluded or their voices aren’t heard.

I can think how there was a museum project a couple years back where they purported to tell the history of South Asians and insulted some members of that community. It was not our project. We weren’t involved in it. But you don’t want to do it that way. You want to actually talk to people.

People who historically have been excluded, marginalized and not allowed to be even in this place as legislators for a period of time deserve the time to be heard, to get it right. And if they are telling me as minister, “We need time to talk to communities that we haven’t engaged yet,” I should listen. That’s what we’re doing right now.

[2:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Just a final question on this. To confirm, this government committed to establishing a South Asian Canadian heritage museum or cultural centre during the 2020 provincial election, reaffirmed their commitment in mandate letters in 2020 and 2022, launched provincewide consultation in 2023. In 2024, Surrey city council unanimously passed a motion to collaborate.

There is no funding for this project in this year’s budget, and the minister is unwilling or unable to provide a timeline on when this project will get moving. Would the minister like to correct me on anything in that statement?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The next phase of this is the release of the what-we-heard report, once they’ve engaged properly with communities that were not engaged, at which point we’ll have further discussion about what next steps will have to be taken. But we’re still very much in the consultation phase of this project, and I look forward to hearing from British Columbians who have not as of yet engaged, in communities that are important to the history of South Asian Canadians’ heritages. That’s the way that we should do this work.

Gavin Dew: So five years after making a promise to try to win an election, absolutely no material progress, no funding, no timeline. Got it.

Let’s talk about another museum. The provincial government proposed demolishing the existing Royal British Columbia Museum and replacing it with a new $789 million facility, citing the need for modernization, inclusivity and better seismic safety. However, as you know, the plan was met with significant public backlash, ultimately leading to the project’s cancellation. A separate project, the construction of a new collections and research building in Colwood for $204.8 million, has proceeded as planned.

Given the cancellation of the main museum redevelopment over public concerns due to costs, how did the government determine that proceeding with the $204.8 million collections and research building remained a priority?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I know there was some disagreement amongst many around what the future of that museum should be, and the government decided no, that the renovation that knocked down construction of a new tower…. Certainly, we heard from the public that that was not the priority for them at this stage.

But one thing that I heard — I believe it was even from the opposition leader at the time — was support for ensuring that our provincial archives and our museum collection, which is really a heritage of all of us of this province, incredibly valuable heritage, be protected.

Much of the collection is currently in buildings that are not seismically safe, so we need to move them. Some of them are below sea level, which is a risk as well. That’s why we’re proceeding with the PARC campus, because that issue is still an issue.

That is a reality, and I would hope that everybody would want to protect our provincial heritage, our provincial archives, our provincial collection, because this is priceless. You can’t replace this stuff. This is vital to knowing who we are and where we can go as a province. So that’s why we proceeded with the collections building.

[The bells were rung.]

I understand that’s a vote, so I think we’re going to have to adjourn here for a moment and go do that vote.

The Chair: The committee will be recessed until the conclusion of the division vote in the chamber.

The committee recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

I now invite the minister to continue his response.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I was wrapping up just to say that we must protect our provincial heritages, we must protect our collection and that the PARC campus is going to go a long way to protect it, because it will be seismically safe, properly HVAC’d, properly protected temperature-wise and all the rest.

I got a chance to go see the site under construction. It’s impressive what they’re doing. It’s beautiful architecture with a very west coast feel to it. I think it’s going to also provide opportunities for teaching, for training, for learning. It will give people an opportunity to see more of their collection, because this, in the end, is the public’s museum and the public collection of everything from things from tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago up to present day. It’s an exciting opportunity for the public and for the museum and archives, which….

If the member wants, I would encourage him to pick up the book on the heritage of the Royal B.C. Museum, the history of it — its fascinating history — from the tiny little building over there, the east annex, to a very exciting museum today. Worth a read. Go B.C. book publishers.

Gavin Dew: As a supporter of our forestry sector, I look forward to purchasing a copy of the book.

Can the minister expand on what steps were taken to engage and consult with the public and relevant stakeholders regarding the decision to proceed with the new building, as well as speaking about any detailed cost-benefit analysis that was undertaken to justify the investment in the new collections and research building, especially in light of other pressing provincial capital needs?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We’re both required by law to protect the collection and to make sure that we’re giving the best stewardship of our common cultural heritages and histories and the items that relate to them. But it’s also, I think, a moral imperative to protect that because that’s how we understand what the future looks like: we also have to understand what the past looks like.

We know that there have been many facility reports into the condition of the facility, the condition of how the collection was being protected, or, rather, in some cases, has not been protected as well as it should be. These go back…. Certainly, if the member does take me up on that and purchases the book and reads it, these issues go back almost to when the Archives building was created in the 1960s.

I know the member doesn’t want to go back to history. Don’t worry, I don’t think it was his government in power then, in the 1960s. I think it was a government called the Social Credit Party, but there were issues with the building as soon as it was created. It’s about time we’re doing this work.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think I’ve heard the member or other members correctly say in the House that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. I think, in this case, we have to do that to protect the heritages of our province collectively.

Gavin Dew: Recognizing the importance of preserving our heritage — certainly, absolutely crucial.

I appreciate that the member is not attempting to hang decisions of the 1960s around the neck of the opposition today. I feel we’ve evolved over the course of today in terms of the timelines that we’re talking about.

With all of those good statements of value, what specific risks to the existing collections and archives does the new facility address? Were there more cost-effective alternatives considered to mitigate these risks? If any report was undertaken that evaluated the different options for addressing these risks, will the minister commit to making that public?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The business case actually for this project is available on the government website and worth a look, for sure.

Gavin Dew: As a substitute critic for this file, I will freely admit that I have not gone looking for that, having taken on this task as of late yesterday, so I appreciate that reference.

With that said, could the minister tell us what measures are in place to ensure that the construction of the new collections and research building remains within budget and delivers value to taxpayers?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Always a concern of mine as well. My understanding is, in this project, there’s actually a fixed price contract with the builder. So they will be coming in on the budget that we’ve announced publicly.

Gavin Dew: How will the new facility in Colwood integrate with the existing museum operations in Victoria? Specifically, what plans are in place to ensure seamless access to collections for both researchers and the public?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d certainly encourage the member or any member to go to the Royal B.C. Museum website. There is an actual kind of a 3D walk-through, a video that you can watch, which will show you what the new collections building is set to look like. I don’t know if anybody in the room has been down to the Archives building over here, but…. It could be better, I guess, might be the nice way to say it.

But in terms of actually being able to use the material, be able to see it, to get it out, there are access challenges for much of the collection, because they’re stored in places that are hard to get to. There are issues of climate control, bugs. There’s a whole bunch of things I’m learning that I didn’t know were there, that had to be in museums, that had to be considered.

I think the new facility is set to provide a place for greater access for researchers, greater access for the broader public. There will be more opportunities for folks at the Royal B.C. Museum to share the collection, to share the work they’re doing.

In fact, if you do either the digital walk-through or the actual walk-through, as I was able to…. Even able to walk in through the space…. There are going to be windows so you can look through to see as they are working on collection items, whether it be chipping away at the rocks to be able to reveal the trilobite or the elasmosaurus, the provincial dinosaur. Look it up if you don’t know. We passed that legislation a little while ago.

[3:20 p.m.]

I’m glad that politicians were not named as the provincial fossil. We were a close second, I think. Sorry, bad joke. I can’t avoid it on a Thursday afternoon.

It’s going to be a great facility, and it’s a huge improvement on what we’ve had to do and what researchers have had to do to engage with our collective heritages.

Gavin Dew: As a purveyor of dad jokes, I respect other people’s dad jokes and trilobite references. We’ll have a competition.

To specify my question in a little more detail, can the minister expand specifically on how the investment in the new collection and research building fits into a long-term integrated vision for the multiple facilities encompassing the Royal B.C. Museum? And can he speak to…? With the original redevelopment plan cancelled, what are the current plans for the main Royal B.C. Museum site in Victoria? How does it all fit together, and how do we ensure seamlessness of connectivity so that we aren’t wasting resources being split so far apart?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think it’s important to understand the different functions of the facilities. The PARC campus is about research and being able to give the folks that work at the Royal B.C. Museum the space to be able to engage with the collections, to preserve the collections, but it’s also for the archives to be able to have space for their collection.

Understand that in the province, for much of our history, the archives were actually separate from the Royal B.C. Museum. They were not together; they were separate entities. In 2003, they were brought together under one umbrella again. They were together. They were apart. They were together. They’re now back together again, but they still function in a different way in terms of what their role is for the public.

The archives is very much people wanting to look into their own histories of their families or where they live, how decisions are made around this place, other archival issues. The museum in downtown Victoria is very much about being a place for people to engage in that history through exhibitions, engage in histories and culture from around the world. It’s much more of a public-facing exhibition space in that sense, whereas the PARC campus is much more about preserving that heritage, doing the archival research, storing the collection.

I think right down here, downtown Victoria, where the Royal B.C. Museum is, across the street from where we are right now, that’s really, really important real estate. That’s a really important community centre.

I’d say the collection, in a way, has outgrown that space. And sure, we could add more warehouses, essentially, right downtown Victoria in some of the most expensive real estate in Victoria, or we could put it elsewhere. That’s where we decided to go — to bring that outside of downtown Victoria so we have a proper collection space for the whole collection, so we can do the archives, so we can do the research. But that’s that side.

Over here, I think the member had a question about: well, what next for the Royal B.C. Museum? It’s the people’s museum. Somewhat similar to an earlier question the member asked, we are very much now in the what-we-heard phase.

There was also a consultation period where the museum went out to the broad public, asked them what they wanted to see at the museum, asked what they think a new, reimagined Royal B.C. Museum should look like. The public certainly wants to understand how we can better engage the different cultural heritages in this province, the different regions in the province, I think, making sure that our story is told in an up-to-date way.

Some of the assumptions and the way the history has been told in that museum have been backwards, have been harmful to certain communities, have ignored certain communities, haven’t been what we would expect in a modern museum.

I think there have been a number of reports which are, certainly for the member or the critic, available on the Royal B.C. Museum website, which explain some of how we got here, some of the challenges that the museum has had with racism against Indigenous people, for example, with telling a story that’s not truthful and not in the voices of the people whose history it is.

[3:25 p.m.]

Examples of Indigenous masks from one culture being smashed together with regalia from another culture in a different part of the province as if it’s all the same. There’s real work that has to be done, and I’m proud of the board that we have in terms of what they are working on around repatriation, around ensuring that Indigenous British Columbians’ heritages are shared from their point of view.

If the member had the chance to see Our Living Languages, for example — incredibly moving exhibition which went through the entire province in partnership with the First Peoples Cultural Council to hear about the different language diversity in this province.

You were able to hear the languages. You were able to hear the stories about language revitalization efforts, about working with Elders and working with youth to have those stories told and have those languages supported to be the living languages and the living histories that they are in communities.

There’s more to be done. The report will come out. I think the museum is working on that now, which will give a sense of where the public thinks our provincial museum needs to go. I’m looking forward to reading it and getting a better sense when it’s released.

Gavin Dew: I’ll turn to a few short questions around the B.C. fairs, festivals and events fund, following which I’ll ask some questions about the 2023 what-we-heard report. Then once I’ve done that, I will hand over for a while to my colleague from Surrey North to ask some questions about sports, just to keep the minister and staff apprised as to where we’re going and try to direct traffic.

The B.C. fairs, festivals and events fund previously provided up to 20 percent of an event’s total budget, capped at $250,000 with a minimum event budget of $10,000. It was designed to help festivals recover from challenges such as rising costs, reduced sponsorship and severe weather events. The new destination events program has reduced the funding to 10 percent of an event’s budget with a lower maximum of $200,000 and a much higher minimum event budget of $150,000 to qualify.

Could the minister explain why the government decided to cut available funding in half from 20 percent of total event budget to only 10 percent?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question.

I think the destination events program is something that folks especially in the tourism world really look forward to. We announced it on Friday — great response so far. I think the reality is there are only so many funds to go around, and we want to make sure that we’re able to support good events, as many of them as we can, with their costs. Certainly we heard from the sector that this is something that they wanted to see. I’ve heard from folks that they’re glad that we were able to bring this program back and that it will fund events.

Now, the point of it, in part, is to support great community cultural events and great community events that bring people together. But it’s also got a part of it which is the tie-in with the tourism world in terms of…. Does your event bring people from outside of region to stay in hotels? So it’s not just kind of a community festival event, but this program is a community festival that brings people to the region to support tourism as well. That’s the destination events program.

Now, to be clear, we also fund festivals and events through the B.C. Arts Council, through gaming grants as well. So it’s not the only place where we have support for festivals, and I look forward to continued discussion. I think we’ll see how this next round goes. We’ll see what folks who work in the industry and who work to produce these events — how they interact with the destination events program. Of course, we’re always open to making adjustments down the road if there are changes that need to be made.

Gavin Dew: I’m struggling to understand why this specific program was targeted for funding reduction or a change in formula and, in particular, for one that makes it harder for smaller rural events to access funding.

[3:30 p.m.]

On our side of the House, we have significant concerns about supporting economic resiliency and diversification in rural communities, and it seems as if these changes make it materially harder for such rural communities to access these funds.

Could the minister please explain the logic behind these changes, as well as any economic impact analysis undertaken to assess how reduced funding will affect tourism revenue, local businesses and job creation in rural communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I agree with the member that we need to look for ways to diversify our economy, to grow our economy, to support jobs in our economy, and that’s what this program does. The destination events program really, in its criteria, very clearly talks about economic benefit in regions and that it’s funding dedicated to programs that generate those economic returns in the region. That’s one of the key priorities and key criteria for how the program is designed.

Gavin Dew: I’m struggling to understand NDP math here. Will the minister explain that if cost increases and inflation are among the primary challenges festivals face, does the minister truly believe that cutting support by 50 percent helps festivals overcome these challenges?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This program, actually, the destination events program…. This is the first time that we’re launching this program with this criteria because it’s important that we actually fund these groups.

Certainly, I heard from many groups. Their advice to me was that to do something like this makes a lot of sense because we want to make sure that many groups still have access to these resources.

Actually, I heard after we announced this that they were glad we did this, because their fear was…. Given the economic challenges and all the talk about how we had to cut spending, cut spending — which I’ve heard often from the opposition — they were worried that this kind of program would be cut.

I’m glad we have this program. It’s going to help many festivals in this province. I think our funding to festivals through the B.C. Arts Council and through gaming grants is going to continue to provide additional resources than this one program to support arts and culture in this province.

Gavin Dew: I remain baffled by the math here. Could the minister please educate me and help me understand how going from a program in the BCFFE, which provided up to 20 percent of an event’s total budget, to a new program in the DEP, which reduces the funding to 10 percent of an event budget, is not a cut.

I am thoroughly baffled, as I stand here, that the minister is proud to tell us about how he is increasing funding by decreasing funding. Could the minister please educate me on the math of how a cut is not a cut?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that the former program, even though there was a maximum that the member points to…. The fact is the most average funding was at the 10 percent level. In fact, that’s what I heard from event producers as well — that that was approximately what they got anyway. They were already getting that amount in many cases.

But the reality is that this program is not the only program to support festivals and events in this province. I think the B.C. Arts Council is still in the process of working through their application and their submissions that have come in around their events and festivals program. I think gaming grants —likewise, those decisions haven’t been made yet.

Certainly for folks looking for support for their events, this is one of a number of programs that exist to support.

I’d also say that a number of destination marketing organizations, destination management organizations in this province…. I can think of one. I was having a conversation recently in Vancouver. They have a program set up — somewhat similar — that is supporting festivals and supporting events in Vancouver.

I know that exists in many parts of this province where they, like us, see the benefit of these large events, and they, like us, see the benefit of community cultural gatherings and events that bring people together to their hospitality sector, to the hotels, to the regions. I think it’s important that we continue to support these events, and I’m glad that we have this program here today.

Gavin Dew: I know that both myself and the minister are the fathers of young children and that we watch kids’ shows that teach kids to count. So I will make my question very, very simple.

Could the minister please confirm whether 10 percent is smaller than, bigger than or equal to 20 percent?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member understands the question. It’s a gotcha kind of thing.

I’d just say that, again, the event organizers that I’ve spoken with were getting 10 percent through the previous program. They’re eligible to apply for 10 percent under this program. So 10 percent equals 10 percent, if we’re playing a math game.

Gavin Dew: I remain baffled by how a program that provided up to 20 percent of an event’s total budget being replaced by one that provides up to 10 percent of an event’s budget does not constitute a cut in the mind of the minister, but I will simply leave that alone.

I will ask, because this is what really matters: will the minister commit to reviewing and increasing festival funding for smaller and rural festivals in the next budget cycle, given that his new program makes it more difficult for both smaller and rural festivals to access funding?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course we’ll review this program. We’re in the process of reviewing the work we do.

This program, obviously, is out now for application, and then, of course, there’ll be the adjudication period and then the notification period for folks in how it works.

Of course, again, we also look at other programs like the B.C. Arts Council. They’ve got over $2 million dedicated for festivals, small festivals in particular, in many communities.

We’re always looking for ways. I’m always looking for ways to better support our communities, and this is no different.

Gavin Dew: Recognizing that the government has very little representation in rural British Columbia and very little representation in small communities, I am hoping that the minister will take it upon himself to become a champion for funding for festivals in smaller and rural communities.

Will the minister go further than simply saying there will be a review and commit today to be a champion for increased festival funding for small and rural communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we’ve got, on the government side, some really effective representation raising the voice of rural communities. I look to my colleague from Castlegar, certainly a strong voice in the Kootenays there; my colleague in Nelson-Creston, certainly raising the voices for rural communities there; on the Island; in the North.

But in the end, the ministry works for all British Columbians, and so I know that the member and his colleagues will also raise these issues with me.

[3:40 p.m.]

My pledge, of course, is always to work hard to increase benefits for British Columbians. If that’s in rural B.C….

I think of ArtsWells, an incredible festival up in, well, Wells, B.C. It’s right in the name. I think of Kaslo jazz festival. I think of other festivals that have done incredible work with very small budgets, sometimes no budget, next to no budget, because it’s just community efforts, and that’s from a small powwow to something much larger in communities up and down this province.

I look across, I see many folks representing many different regions in this province, and I look forward to good conversations in the years ahead to support your festivals, your arts and cultural events, as best as we’re able to — heritage as well. It’s all to the good.

I’m glad that there are voices that want to passionately support arts and culture. That’s not always been the case in government. I remember days when folks said that these were wastes of money. I’m glad that the member is not making that view and in fact is supporting festivals and events, because they’re good for our community and they’re good for our economy.

Gavin Dew: To be specific again, the change from the BCFFE program to the DEP program not only cuts the maximum amount from 20 percent to 10 percent but raises the minimum threshold budget to qualify. By making that change, the ministry has made it more difficult for smaller, rural events to access funding.

If the minister’s goal is to help all of British Columbia, that has not been achieved with this policy change. What this policy change has done is made it materially harder for smaller, rural festivals to access funding. This is not neutral. This is less than. This is worse for smaller and rural communities than the previous program.

I will ask again very clearly. Will the minister specifically commit to reviewing and increasing festival funding and the festival funding formula for smaller and rural festivals in the next budget cycle, yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member will know that I’m unable to make budget commitments for a year from now in terms of what the Finance Minister runs through the budget. I appreciate the advocacy, and I think it will be valuable. But that’s why we do reviews, as well, so that, depending on what we hear and what it looks like, we can assess our own budget and see what we can do within our own budgeted means, depending on where the needs land most and where the benefit is the most. So, we consider that.

We’re looking…. As the member wanted us to do, as we want to do, we want to make sure that there’s the best return, that there is economic benefit, that it helps drive job growth in communities, that it helps bring tourism to communities. That’s the point of this program.

I’m happy to have the conversation down the road again. Certainly, we’ll look for whatever opportunities we can to provide support for whether it be big city festivals or smaller festivals in smaller towns that bring real economic return to those towns as well.

Gavin Dew: I’m saddened to not hear a clear commitment that the minister will be a champion within his government for increased funding for rural festivals and festivals in small communities. I certainly hope that at such time as a commitment is made, it is kept a little better than the commitment to a South Asian heritage museum.

I’ll move on to the next topic, the 2023 what-we-heard report. I won’t recount all the various aspects in it, but I do have a few questions.

The report identified that tourism operators face excessive delays in bureaucratic red tape when applying for land use permits, particularly for ecotourism, adventure tourism and resort development. Can the minister provide a clear breakdown of the average processing time for tourism-related Crown land tenures in 2025 versus 2023?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member may not know, as he’s not the critic for this area, but land tenures are decided at the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. That’s where…. They set the permitting times. Those issues are handled there, so I can’t give that information to the member right now.

[3:45 p.m.]

What I can say is that certainly my commitment to the tourism industry has been to work to support their efforts to deal with tenure issues, deal with land issues. I’m certainly, in the months ahead, reaching out to work with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and Ministry of Environment around tenure issues.

I think our recreation economy, our adventure tourism economy really relies on the land, very clearly. And not just the land, but the water as well, and then the intertidal and river systems and lakes and so on. So permitting timelines — we’re working to get them down across government.

And certainly, I’m working with tourism stakeholders and with other ministries to try and support quicker turnaround, because we want folks to have some better certainty on the land base and better results when they make the investments that they do so that they can have some confidence in terms of timelines and better results for their projects and the communities that they’re based in.

The Chair: Minister for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: I’m not a minister, just a regular member.

The Chair: Member.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. It’s that time of day.

Thank you very much to the minister for referencing the cross-ministerial collaboration in this regard. I’m hoping that he can pick up on some of those areas.

Given that operators continue to report excessive wait times, what specific reforms has the ministry or other ministries implemented to streamline the approvals processes, and why are businesses still reporting very significant delays?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the question.

When I became the minister, one of the things that I asked was: how do we do better for the land-based businesses, the water, the land? Because we want more investment. We want growth in this sector. And so through collaboration with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and the Ministry of Environment, I think we’ll get there. We’re looking at all aspects of the permitting processes: legislation, timelines, who makes the decisions, where there are potential redundancies, where you could substitute something for something else.

But those conversations, I’ve asked to stand up. And then certainly with the tariff issue coming to us and the huge impact on our economy from America, I’ve underlined that it’s important that we not just talk about it, but act on it. So, that work is underway now with good collaboration.

Much of the legislative tools — in fact, most of them — are outside of this ministry in terms of the actual legislation around some of the permitting. But we work as advocates for those within our ministry who sometimes need that boost, because I think in tourism, we have so many small businesses that we need to work to make sure they’re united and that their voices are heard.

Because, certainly, bigger industries, for a long time, at least in terms of bigger corporations or bigger companies, have been very good at getting their voices heard. And I think we want to make sure that people understand the huge size, the huge value of tourism.

I often hear members talk about the four founding industries in the Legislature. They point up above us in the Rotunda, at the paintings that were done in the 1930s, to say that agriculture and mining and so on, and they talk about forestry and fishing — those are the industries.

Tourism, from the beginning of this place that we call home, has been one of the biggest industries. We just never thought of it that way. It’s a resource — the relationships we have with people. The resource is our relationship with the land. The resource is the relationship with culture. And it’s something that people from all over the world want to be part of, to have that relationship, to have that….

[3:50 p.m.]

So it is a resource economy in that sense as well, a resource job. But we haven’t thought about it that way. We haven’t always thought about it as an export industry, when of course, at the crux of it, we’re exporting experiences. We’re exporting people’s best times of their lives when they come to visit our province. In many cases, of course, that export comes back again and becomes an import because they want to join our province, they want to move here, they want to bring their business here.

Sorry if I’ve strayed off a little bit, to the member. I’m passionate and enthusiastic about this work, and it excites me to no end to share that passion with others.

Gavin Dew: I think in his statement around the stained-glass windows in the Legislature, the minister may have mistaken MLAs for tour guides. Perhaps, given his party’s obsession with pointing to the past, I will observe that I’m not sure whether that stained glass was installed in 1893 or thereafter, but I can confirm that at no time did anyone on our side of the House install that stained glass. In fact, we support a modern, diversified economy.

Now, let’s turn to another subset of this issue. Indigenous tourism operators have expressed frustration over the complicated and unclear process of securing land tenures for tourism projects on traditional territories. Despite the government’s stated commitment to economic reconciliation, many Indigenous-owned tourism businesses struggle with permit approvals and lack direct access to decision-making on land use.

Minister, what concrete actions has the ministry, in collaboration with other ministries, taken to simplify and expedite land use approvals for Indigenous-led tourism initiatives?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would say that the member is on to something in the huge potential and huge growth we’re seeing in Indigenous tourism in this province. I think when I first got to know folks at Indigenous Tourism B.C., which was then Aboriginal Tourism B.C., there were maybe 50 market-ready businesses in the Indigenous tourism world. There are now over 500. It’s been an incredible growth path.

I raise my hands to Indigenous Tourism B.C. They’ve done such important work helping small, fledgling businesses — some that are very difficult to get to, in many rural parts of this province — to become market-ready, become ready to engage the world, become in a bigger way than they may have already been doing. They become connected, whether it’s the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, or in some cases, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Environment, to get permits dealt with.

It’s similar to my answer earlier. We are looking at that issue very closely. I had many good discussions with Indigenous leaders at the First Nations Leadership Gathering and after, and I’m sure we’ll continue those conversations. The land is so valuable to those experiences, and you want a situation where people know that they have access and that it’s respected.

I think back to an experience maybe ten years ago where there was a wonderful tourism business that was just about to bring folks out on their trail ride and discovered that another ministry had approved the mass cutting of the forest that that trail went through. There was no way to access that trail anymore, because there hadn’t been that consultation. I think that’s something that back then should have been improved.

Obviously, those issues of tenure and tenure conflict are ones that we need to be continually working to resolve to get ahead of, so that that’s not the situation, so that people know that what they’re booking is going to be what they’re getting, and so that those Indigenous tourism businesses, and all tourism businesses, can see a clear path to growth and a clear path from their government of supporting them in their efforts.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister please provide a list of Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in the last two years?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Permit approvals are not made through our ministry, so we don’t have those names and those numbers here. I would encourage the member to engage either with Indigenous Tourism B.C. or with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and raise those questions,

There are so many Indigenous tourism businesses engaged on the land base that have worked through issues. There are over 500, as I said, businesses now. Some of them are in cities, but many of them are very much out on the land, engaged on the land and engaged with permits and tenures.

I’d encourage him to chase that one down with the ministry responsible for those permits. It’s not just Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, but it’s also Ministry of Environment and, in some cases, I believe, Ministry of Forests.

Gavin Dew: The minister has spoken often about the integrated nature of his ministry’s work with other ministries.

Rather than suggesting that the opposition chase down those names, can I suggest that the minister in fact go and work with his fellow ministers and procure a list of the Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in pursuit of their efforts toward tourism and provide it to us in the next two weeks?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: I now call recess, and we will reconvene following the division vote.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We are currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

I recognize the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly happy to follow up with the member on that. I wish I could be more definitive about timelines, and so on. As it’s not in our ministry, I don’t know how easily accessed that kind of information is.

Also, there are things like freedom of information, commercial confidences and legal issues for some of the providers. They may not want us to share that information or that they’ve even engaged in the permitting process because, of course, some of that…. Until they’re ready to go live, they may not want their business being revealed, for example.

[4:15 p.m.]

I don’t know how easily that’s gathered, so I can’t commit to a timeline, as it’s outside of our ministry. But certainly happy to follow up with the member post-this to see exactly what he’s looking for.

Gavin Dew: We are fortunate that, over the break, the Ministers of both WLRS and Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation have come to join us in the committee room, so perhaps I will repeat my theme and ask a different question.

Indigenous tourism operators are frustrated by the complicated and unclear process of securing land tenures for tourism projects on traditional territories. And despite the government’s stated commitment to economic reconciliation, many Indigenous-owned tourism businesses are struggling with permit approvals and lack direct access to decision-making on land use.

What I asked the minister prior to the recess was what concrete actions his ministry and other ministries have taken to simplify and expedite land use approvals for Indigenous-led tourism initiatives. And he was just finishing telling us about how he was going to do his utmost to provide a list of Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in the last two years.

I will just nuance that question, because I don’t want to get no response back. If the minister and his colleagues are unable to provide a specific list, will they, at minimum, provide aggregate information that does not necessarily disclose information that cannot be disclosed about individual operators so that we can have a clear understanding of the number and region of Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in the last two years?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question.

My understanding is the tenures on Crown land are posted online on a website about who has been approved for tenures. I don’t think it’s arranged by nation, necessarily. So to be able to pull that out to say this one specifically is necessarily an Indigenous tourism business or not and whether or not that’s on traditional territory….

Certainly we can look at the list. We can get that information to the member for where to access that list. But I can’t commit to a timeline that this will be ready with every business, every place they started in that two-year timeline. Some may have begun before. Some may have been engaged in actually getting renewals.

I just don’t have that level of detail today to be able to make that commitment.

Gavin Dew: I trust the minister will make best efforts to provide suitable information. I appreciate his directness and honesty in understanding what is and is not available. I think we all share the goal of seeing Indigenous-owned tourism businesses succeed, and we’re simply trying to gather information to understand the trend line in that regard and whether undue obstacles remain to enable folks to succeed.

I will return to some questions related to the 2023 future of tourism what-we-heard report. And I will touch specifically on transportation issues, which were highlighted as being significant and of course cut across multiple ministries. The what-we-heard report clearly identified the loss of intercity transit, following the exit of Greyhound, as a major barrier to tourism recovery, particularly for small communities.

Can the minister provide a detailed explanation of why, after two years, B.C. still lacks a provincial intercity bus service connecting major tourism destinations? Has the government allocated any funding or pursued private partnerships to address this gap, and if so, what funding and what partnerships?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Right in the question, in a way, the member answered the question himself. This really is transit transportation within the Ministry of Transportation. They are the ones that make investments in things like B.C. Bus North. Certainly, I would encourage follow-up on that side.

I’d say what we look to is…. We look to support any investments and support just being a voice to say investments in travel and transportation and getting access to the regions is important. That’s also including things like supporting investments.

I was talking to folks who work in tourism up in the northwest of the province: Stewart, Hyder, Telegraph Creek — not Telegraph Cove, that’s on the island, but Telegraph Creek — and those kinds of regions. Their voice and those from Indigenous communities was about how important the government’s investments in that highway are going to be for unlocking the tourism potential in that region.

I understand where the member is going. Obviously, you have to be able to get somewhere if you want to encourage somebody to have a tourism experience. But in terms of the actual roads and the actual buses and those kinds of things, that’s held within the Ministry of Transportation.

Gavin Dew: I must say I find it frustrating that the definitions of collaboration, engagement and commitment seem to vary depending on the question. I would expect that the minister and the ministry would be aware of and collaborating with these kinds of efforts.

Since the minister raises the issue of road infrastructure, tourism operators in regions like the Kootenays, Cariboo and northern B.C. have consistently raised concerns about poorly maintained highways, seasonal closures and a lack of roadside infrastructure for travellers. Can the minister provide a breakdown of funding allocated for highway upgrades specifically tied to tourism routes? And if he cannot provide a breakdown or wishes to defer to the Minister of Transportation, can he please explain how his ministry is engaged in informing these decisions?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t, within our ministry, have a list of every road infrastructure upgrade in this province and why did we pave that lane, why didn’t we pave that lane, why did we choose that road versus that road. That, appropriately, is in the Ministry of Transportation.

I know it’s frustrating as a critic to ask questions and be directed elsewhere, but it’s also important to ask the right questions to the right ministry. In terms of the actual investments that have come through our ministry that relate to transportation, I’m certainly happy to provide a list. We’re not paving roads through this ministry, but there are ancillary things that affect transportation, things like bathrooms, that we have had some investments in in the past.

But really, road infrastructure, highways, transportation is appropriately in the Ministry of Transportation.

Gavin Dew: I find it frustrating that the minister opened by talking about how collaboratively his ministry worked with other ministries, yet every time there is a question about how his ministry works with other ministries, there is a non-answer.

So specific to this question, I will again ask: has the ministry conducted any impact assessments on how road conditions affect visitor travel patterns from a tourism promotion perspective?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No, we haven’t provided studies on the road infrastructure in this province.

Gavin Dew: Will the minister commit to do so?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Always happy to hear from folks in the tourism field who have arguments about one road or another and so on, but if they want their roads upgraded, the appropriate place to go is the Ministry of Transportation.

[4:25 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: That sounds like a very piecemeal approach, where individuals are supposed to lobby the Ministry of Transportation, and there is no coherent strategy.

Will the minister rethink his answer and commit to advancing a coherent strategy, working with the Ministry of Transportation in order to conduct an impact assessment on how road conditions affect visitor travel patterns in jurisdictions such as the Kootenays, the Cariboo and northern B.C. in order to make sure that through collaboration across ministries, which he has repeatedly talked about his desire to do, we can improve the tourism infrastructure that drives tourism in rural British Columbia?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, we do work collaboratively with ministries across the government, but I don’t think that means that we are the ministry for every ministry.

It sounds like the member is arguing that I should be the minister for everything and be able to make decisions around everything because they all relate to tourism. Of course, everything has a connection to tourism, but the appropriate question has to go to the appropriate ministry.

Now, that being said, of course we’re going to continue to work to support historic and future tourism routes as ways to get places, but that’s mostly in the marketing. That’s what happens in our ministry. In terms of the assessment of the roadbed — is it appropriate, are there too many potholes, does it take too long to get from one place to the other, should that be faster? — that’s appropriately the job of the Ministry of Transportation.

I think in my consultations with folks in the tourism industry, the issues that they raise with me are largely related to more issues like permitting of tenures. They raise issues of having enough staff. They raise issues of: do we have the right mix of marketing? Do we have the right collaboration with different destination marketing organizations?

They also say that when they have issues with roads, they go to the Ministry of Transportation because they understand that they’re the ones that build the roads, they’re the ones that maintain the roads, they’re the ones that set the rules on the road, so they’re the appropriate place to make decisions about the roads.

Gavin Dew: I believe the minister is misunderstanding my question. I’m not asking about road construction. I’m not asking about roadbeds. I’m not asking about gravel. What I’m asking about is specifically in the ambit of the Ministry of Tourism.

There is abundant research undertaken by tourism organizations around this province in order to evaluate the drivers and restrainers of tourism in their respective regions. They look at all kinds of different factors that attract people to undertake tourism. They try to address those factors. They try to strengthen their appeal.

We have heard consistent concerns from tourism operators in regions like the Kootenays, Cariboo and northern B.C. that poorly maintained highways, seasonal closures and a lack of roadside infrastructure for travellers is contributing to diminished tourism in their regions.

I’m not asking the minister to build roads. I’m not asking the minister to be the Minister of Transportation. What I’m asking the minister to do is to undertake impact assessments with tourists or with tourism promotion organizations around how road conditions are affecting visitor travel patterns so that that information, which I would assume remains specifically in the ambit of the Minister of Tourism, can be used to inform policy-making and decision-making around prospective road improvements that would duly be undertaken by the appropriate ministry.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member talks about assessments and things that different tourism organizations have done. In many cases, those assessments are funded through Destination B.C. They work with our regional tourism partners on the issues that they see as priorities in their regions. They will continue to do that, and that certainly is my expectation.

If a regional tourism organization says that that’s the top issue in their region, if the city raises it with a regional destination marketing organization, that then gets to Destination B.C. who makes decisions around these kinds of reports.

[4:30 p.m.]

The reason I was talking about roadbeds to the member is he was talking about impact assessment of roads and conditions. So I assume that also impacts the road bed and being able to drive safely on that, which is really the job of the Ministry of Transportation. So that’s why I made that point.

In terms of people’s ability to get to places, what is needed to grow tourism in those regions, we hear that through our partners all the time. Again, I’ll make the offer. I don’t know if the member actually wants this information — I hope he does — around what investments we’ve made for things like roadside bathrooms, ensuring that you have the ability to get to a rest station. And the quality of it does matter. There have been investments on that side that have come through tourism funds with support of regional tourism organizations.

If the member wants, we can pull together that list. I’d just love an indication.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Gavin Dew: Minister, I would certainly appreciate that list. I would also just ask you specifically: will you direct Destination B.C. to undertake studies or provide funding to undertake studies with regard to assessing the impact of road conditions on rural tourism?

Will you provide specific directed funding or direction to Destination B.C. to make this a priority? Because this is a concern that we’re hearing time and again from communities like the Kootenays, Cariboo and northern B.C.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We look to the regions for their advice — so rural B.C., many different regions — and there are different issues within those regions. There’s not one monolith, one issue, in rural B.C. I think it’s important that we listen to those voices. So the member has raised concerns that he’s hearing.

Can we make sure that phones are turned off please? Thank you.

Sorry, that’s the Chair’s job. I used to have your job. Sorry, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Could we please make sure that cell phones are muted during this period of time?

Minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you. A soundtrack is fun, but we don’t need one right now.

Yeah, it really is…. I don’t want to be combative about this in any way. I think this is a question where we look to the regions, and if that’s what they’re hearing, that’s how they develop their plans. And so their destination development plans include studies, include research, include looking at travel patterns, include what they think will be the biggest return for their dollar. That’s where the research happens, and that’s where the requests happen.

We hear it. Certainly I’ll check in with our regional partners to see if that’s the top issue that they think needs to be the focus, because in the end, it rests with them and with the businesses in those regions to develop those plans as opposed to a politician just saying: “This is the top issue. We’re not listening to you.” It actually has to come from them, and that’s where this work should come from.

Gavin Dew: I certainly agree with the minister that rural British Columbia is not monolithic, and I would submit that conducting an impact assessment on how road conditions affect visitor travel patterns would be a very good way to break down any monolithic notion of what is needed in different regions.

But let’s move from roads to another form of travel. Air travel remains the only viable option for many remote tourism destinations, yet regional flight prices in B.C. are among the highest in Canada. Has the ministry worked with regional airlines to expand affordable routes to tourism-reliant communities? Can the minister provide any data on provincial subsidies or incentive programs or partnerships that have been introduced to reduce travel costs for visitors to these regions?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Air travel is hugely important for tourism in this province, for people to be able to get around a province as vast as ours with as many mountain passes and remote areas.

We’re served by an incredible number of airports. I was having a conversation with Air Canada the other day about how many routes they have in B.C. alone. I know there are many other air carriers and float plane carriers, as well, that have aquatic airports in addition.

At our round table we had last week, the president of the B.C. Aviation Council was there. Certainly we’re going to follow up with more discussions with them to look at what opportunities they see, what are the barriers to increasing air travel or giving people more options, more choices.

I think what I’m hearing anecdotally is there is interest in increasing routes, in part because of the economic challenge that we’re being faced with from our neighbours to the south. There’s more desire of British Columbians to get out and see the province, more desire of Canadians to get out and see different parts of B.C. too.

I know some of the carriers are looking at potentially adding routes. They’re looking at how they do that and where they do that that makes most sense business-wise. It is a private industry. It’s a private for-profit industry that makes business choices about where they see opportunity for growth.

I’m certainly happy to continue talking with them about what they see as necessary on the regulatory side or elsewhere that would matter. Of course, some of that’s outside of the ministry, but we’re always looking for ways to support access as best as we’re able to, within our fields anyways.

Gavin Dew: In 2023, the ministry committed to improving transportation accessibility by expanding ride-hailing options across the province. However, as of 2025, many tourism-reliant communities outside of Metro Vancouver and Victoria still lack access to services like Uber and Lyft.

What steps, if any, has the ministry taken to facilitate the expansion of ride-hailing services into smaller communities? Have regulatory roadblocks been addressed, or does the government continue to limit private transportation alternatives?

If the minister’s answer is that it’s up to a different minister, then I would ask what he is doing or will do to advocate for ensuring that we’re able to bring these services to more communities in the near term.

The Chair: Before we continue, I’d ask again that individuals here please ensure that their phones are muted so that the proceedings can go ahead.

Recognizing the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s the ministry for arts and culture, so people want to play music. I’m sorry, hon. Chair. And they’ll dance later.

I think, in the question of ride-hail and how we get access and people getting around communities, I hear the member. I think they’re great options for people where they exist. I understand taxi, as well, is hugely important, in terms of transportation and getting around in communities. Some take ride-hail. Some take taxi. Some take both.

Certainly I’m happy to have conversations with colleagues and continue conversations about where there are opportunities, where there are options.

[4:40 p.m.]

But yes, the member is right. It is outside of the ministry. As much as I might want to be the minister for everything, that’s not something my colleagues agree with, so we’ll continue on.

Gavin Dew: I will inform the Chair that in our caucus we have a fine for ringing phones during meetings. I would suggest the members opposite may wish to consider such an option in their caucus.

Interjections.

Gavin Dew: That was funny. It’s that type of day.

We’ve talked about commitments from five years ago that this government has not fulfilled. We just talked about a commitment from 2023 that this government has not fulfilled. Let’s talk about a commitment from 2024 and see whether this government will fulfil it. In the 2024 NDP platform, there was a commitment to an arts, culture and sports infrastructure fund. Can the minister please let us know when that fund will be forthcoming?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No question: infrastructure for arts and culture, and supporting an infrastructure fund, is a passion of mine. It’s something that I’ve advocated for a long time. I’m glad that we have a capital fund within the B.C. Arts Council now. It hasn’t been there forever, even though we should have had a capital fund for a long time, to maintain and upgrade facilities. The capital fund through the Arts Council, I think, is good news.

At B.C. Gaming, as well, we have a capital fund there, which has been providing resources — not just to arts and culture, to be clear. That’s important; I hear the member. We have incredible cultural facilities across this province, and they need to be updated. They need to be upgraded.

I know that some of them have received support through other ministries. Even though it’s supporting culture, we’re not calling it cultural funding in that sense. Whether it’s with their HVAC systems, their heat pumps, there has been support across government to support them to reduce carbon emissions, to support improvements for accessibility and those kinds of things.

I hear the member. We’re always looking for more resources. Certainly, if the member and his caucus want to commit to increasing resources for arts and culture funding and not to criticize us if we do, that’s always helpful to know — to get in support of arts and culture funding and not also argue, at the same time, that we should be cutting funding. That goes against arguing that we need more money. I know it’s not always easy to argue both sides of that question.

I think investing in arts and culture infrastructure and in capital funding is really important. We’ve had some major investments. The member will know about the Chinese Canadian Museum, for example — a strong investment to tell a story that had been ignored and had been hidden away. That’s one project with a huge impact, huge results.

Arts and culture infrastructure — we talked earlier about the PARC campus, maintaining our heritage, the cultural resources and the richness of the province. I mentioned the infrastructure funding that we got through the Arts Council and through gaming grants. I’m happy to take more questions on this one.

[4:45 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I will note that this will be my final question. I will be turning the microphone over momentarily to the MLA for Surrey North, who is our critic for parental rights and sports. If I don’t get the opportunity to question the minister again, I will say that I’ve enjoyed our time together, and I certainly have appreciated it.

That said, I would just point out that the question was very simple: what happened to the commitment, in the 2024 NDP platform, to an arts, culture and sports infrastructure fund? It does not appear to exist, much like the South Asian heritage museum that dates back to the 2020 election and that does not exist.

Certainly, the minister seems to want to go off on a dialogue about the opposition supporting decisions. No, we’re simply asking this government to fulfil the campaign promises that it made to people in this last election.

Now, certainly in my community of Kelowna, there is substantial interest in building a new performance centre. In other municipalities, there’s substantial interest in building arts, culture and sports infrastructure. As I was sitting here, I’ve just received text messages from municipal leaders who are curious to get a better understanding as to how this all works.

If there are municipalities that want to seek funding that they had planned to pursue through the promised arts, culture and sports infrastructure fund, specifically outlined in the NDP’s 2024 platform, should they await a process? If so, on what date should we expect that that process will be forthcoming? At what time should we expect that capital will be allocated? Or should municipal leaders simply approach the minister directly with their specific asks for their specific projects?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question and for this dialogue back and forth. I know he is not the member for Richmond-Bridgeport, but I know he’s asked a whole lot of questions. I hope she’s able to observe and review this so that I don’t have to answer the same questions two weeks from now. I think we’ve had a good dialogue and a good discussion so far. I appreciate the collaborative effort or the approach of looking for solutions and looking for ways to improve.

On the arts and culture fund that the member mentions, I mentioned some of the funding we have for capital already. Some of the municipalities and some of the non-profit organizations certainly are looking to those as ways to do their projects.

I think the provincial budget has a very large capital plan. I think my mandate letter is over the term of government, in the work that I’ve been tasked to do. Not everything will be solved in budget 1. I think there’s always work to do to develop these programs. You also want to make sure that they’re going to work in a timely way.

Sometimes they are programs that in the past we had strong federal support on: the idea of a third, a third, a third. The city puts up a third; the feds, a third; the province, a third. In some cases, that has been the way it worked. In recent years, that has been less certain with our federal partners.

Certainly, we’re looking at how we develop a program that’s going to matter, that’s going to help people but that’s also within the fiscal room that the province possesses. That’s always something we have to consider as well. There are only so many dollars to be spent. We also know there are huge needs in many other sectors too. It’s not just arts and culture. People want a hospital, people want a school, and people want investments in those kinds of things as well.

Thank you to the member for the question. I look forward to further dialogue with his critic when she’s able to. I wish her the best on her health, and I look forward to new questions from a new member.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Budget 2025 outlines $109 million for stadium capital investments for the FIFA World Cup 2026. While this confirms the minimum amount this government will spend on FIFA for just seven games, what remains undisclosed is the total operating cost of hosting the event.

Can the minister provide a full breakdown of the projected total cost to taxpayers for hosting these seven games, including security, infrastructure and operational expenses?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would encourage the member to look to the ministry website. We’ve got the World Cup report as of April last year. There will be another fuller report coming out — I don’t have the timeline, but soon — with updated numbers.

I think it’s important to also note that the city of Vancouver has its own process. They’re the host city. We’re supporting them, but their costs and their decisions around expenditures are theirs alone.

Certainly, on our numbers, if the member wants the most up-to-date list of numbers, I should be able to provide that for him. The next public reporting date with all the locked-in numbers will be in May.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Okay, thank you. I figured out what I can find. I’ll wait for that. Okay.

Given that B.C. taxpayers are footing this bill, will the minister disclose exactly how much FIFA is contributing, if anything, to these upgrades?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question.

I think attracting the World Cup to B.C. is very important, especially right now. We want to diversify. We want to know that tourism can grow. We want people to also enjoy a great game — well, great games. It’s exciting folks in the tourism world to no end that we have this coming to us.

It’s hard to get in front of people’s eyeballs in this world today. There are so many distractions, so many things to think about. So to have a dedicated fan favourite event, the most popular sporting event in the world, coming to Vancouver…. The best estimates that we have are that post-game, that’ll generate over $1 billion in economic returns to the province. That’s through people coming to B.C., people understanding Vancouver, British Columbia, where it exists. It’s a huge opportunity for the province.

Investments in B.C. Place, we are making. FIFA is not paying for the investments in B.C. Place. That’s part of the…. PavCo, B.C. Pavilion Corporation, has an agreement with the World Cup, with FIFA, around costs, around expectations, around how we do the work, what they need to see in order for us to be a host. So, there are high expectations.

But the work, I should make sure the member understands, is work we had to do anyways. It’s work that is necessary for a high-class, important, functioning stadium that generates returns to the public. For example, folks might not know, but the washrooms and change room facilities for, whether or not it be a top artist like Taylor Swift, top athletes like the B.C. Lions, the washrooms…. If you go into the showers, they’re all gang-style showers. There’s no privacy. The tile work is from 1981. A few things have changed since then, and it’s important that, if we’re inviting people to use our facilities — and last year was a record year for use of B.C. Place and for return to the public — that those facilities actually meet their expectations.

Another challenge in B.C. Place which is getting looked at and getting some action on is accessibility. We’re doubling the number of elevators in B.C. Place so that if you have a challenge with stairs, if you need to push a stroller, if you’re in a wheelchair, you get better access in and throughout that venue. Again, something that should have been done a long time ago.

[4:55 p.m.]

We’re able to use the World Cup to make those investments that were needed for the World Cup, but they were needed long ago.

I can think of another opportunity that the money that we’re putting into B.C. Place will allow us to do. There are some sites in that stadium that really look like dingy cloakrooms. They’re not nice spaces. They’re not useful for much of anything. But then you look to the windows, and the views are incredible. They were not used effectively in that space. Part of that was because of how they were accessed, how they were designed, how they were built.

We’re able to use some of the money we’re investing — the public’s money, I should say — to make those facilities usable so that we can use them for conventions, we can use them for meetings.

We can use them in a way so that the stadium is multipurpose, instead of what one of the issues is right now. If you’re going to have an event, you have access to everywhere in that stadium. That means that you then have to bring more security on, and the costs go up and the public benefit goes down.

By making many of these upgrades, we’re improving the ability for B.C. Place to function as a generator of revenue and a generator of public benefit in a way that it currently is unable to be.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Will the minister table the contract with FIFA to ensure that British Columbians know how much they are paying? Or did the government sign a non-disclosure agreement with FIFA? What prevents full transparency of public spending?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The ministry does not have a contract with FIFA; the city of Vancouver does. If the member wants to get responses for how Vancouver has an agreement with FIFA as the host city, I would recommend that he follows up with the city of Vancouver.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: You talked about PavCo, right? The PavCo service report states that venue upgrades include critical renovations which are required to attract the world’s best sports, music and events.

Can the minister explain what the upgrades are to the stadium and how they are required to attract this event?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I just answered that question in talking about whether or not it be the showers, accessibility, access for some of the parts of the venue to be able to be used as conference spaces, to have more events there so you can do multiple events at once instead of just one at a time. I think the question was answered.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Can the minister explain how they can justify spending $109 million on upgrades to B.C. Place while so many election commitments are unfulfilled?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: People want to celebrate together. They want to support great sports events.

The World Cup is the biggest in the world. It’s got more interest from all over the world than any other sporting event.

I think, if you look at it, a billion dollars in economic returns post-games, that’s pretty good to me. If you talk to anyone in the tourism field, they’re excited it’s coming. If you talk to sports fans, they’re excited it’s coming.

I understand that there are those who might not think we should support the World Cup, but many of the member’s colleagues have asked me for tickets. They’ve said they want to come to the World Cup, and they’re very excited about it because they think it’s a good investment to the province. So if the member’s party doesn’t think this is a good thing, I’d certainly be interested, because many colleagues have told me they want to be there.

I don’t have tickets to give, so members, don’t ask me for tickets to the World Cup for your use. But I appreciate, anyways, many members on that side’s enthusiasm for the World Cup coming to Vancouver.

[5:00 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Mr. Chair, if I may ask a clarification question for the Clerk and yourself about the timing — that we wrap up in the House here — just out of respect for the ministerial staff and the minister, and so we can organize the questions I have in a fashion that works for everybody.

The Chair: We will be going until 5:15.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the minister’s answers so far to the questions.

I’m going to shift gears a little bit and talk about resort municipalities. Obviously, there are 14 resort municipalities in the province, five of which are in my riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke. We have some clarification just around some of these issues.

I totally understand and respect the minister’s perspective that he’s had feedback from Americans that want to come to British Columbia and spend their tourism dollars here in the province. Respectfully, that’s not the case everywhere. In East Kootenay, where we live — myself, I know, and the member for Kootenay East — we border a very Republican state in Montana.

I know we’ve shared this view. We’re getting lots of letters in our office, as people feel very excluded and not welcome here to spend their tourism dollars. What do those tourism dollars look like? According to Kootenay Rockies Tourism, in 2023, 57,000 U.S. visitors came to the Kootenays, and U.S. visitors spent about $100 million in the region.

Just to put that in perspective, if you’re going to do a Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep hunt in the Rocky Mountains, it’s about $30,000 a person. Obviously, American tourists not feeling welcomed, from Republican states, is a big problem for us in the East Kootenays.

My question, just as I get started here, to the minister is: how do they plan to make up for tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of lost revenue from American visitors?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, we didn’t start this fight. We don’t want this fight. We support strong American tourism to B.C. We want them here. I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to be clear: Americans are welcome in British Columbia — just not annexing British Columbia, just not annexing Canada.

We know most Americans don’t hold those views. The President seems to. We have to take that seriously, and we have to stand up for ourselves. I hope the member is not suggesting that we shouldn’t speak out against what’s happening, in the States, to us. I think we have to.

We also have to say: “You’re welcome to be here.” We’re marketing to Americans to say: “Come to this province; come to this country.” I think Destination Canada has identified, across Canada, that Canadians still very much want Americans here, that we’re still welcoming them. We’re not happy with what America is doing to our country, but we want them here.

I certainly would hope the member agrees that we have to stand up for our country but that we can still be welcoming neighbours. Just because we disagree with what the fellow in the White House is doing, what the President of America is doing, and his threats to our national sovereignty, it doesn’t mean that we’re against Americans.

Saying that we oppose President Trump’s desire to annex our country doesn’t mean we oppose Americans coming to visit our country. It just means that we’re standing up for our country; we’re standing up for our province.

We’re also welcoming neighbours, as we always want to be. We don’t want this fight. We don’t want this to go back and forth like it is. Unfortunately, that’s out of our control. It’s very much in the White House’s control.

[5:05 p.m.]

We will stand up for our people, but we’ll also welcome not just Americans but other British Columbians and other Canadians to come visit the region. I certainly know there’s strong interest right now in ski in the Kootenays, coming from across Canada but, indeed, still from America. We’re going to continue.

Now, I know there are cross-border issues and that the nearest states are sometimes the biggest tourism backers for us, but there are a lot of visitors from different parts of America that come visit us, too — not just red states or blue states, but all of America. They are welcome; the door is open. We’re here to welcome you.

I would certainly say to anybody out there that just because you see an American plate, it doesn’t mean you get to be mean and rude to that person. If there’s any thought out there that there should be these reprisals or something to individual Americans — stop it. It’s not welcome; it’s not helpful. We want you to feel welcome in our province, but it’s our province. We want you to feel welcome in our country, but it’s our country.

So I’ll be clear that they’re welcome here. We want them here. We love their joy in visiting our province and coming back again and again. What we don’t like is threats to our very existence as a country.

Scott McInnis: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that annexing Canada as the 51st state is just simply not going to happen on anybody’s watch here. That’s for sure.

But respectfully, when your government targets states and citizens who have supported the President, you’re not differentiating between the President and his actions and the individuals who voted him in. Like I said, we have a lot of Idaho and Montana tourists that visit our region and spend a lot of money there.

What is your plan to spend money in marketing and make up for the lost revenue from Republican visitors, again, who no longer feel welcome here?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If members didn’t get a chance to see the Premier’s remarks at the Invictus Games, that was about as clear as we can get: Americans are our friends; we want them here; they’re welcome here. If they voted one way or the other way, we want them here.

I think the issue that we have is really with some of the officeholders who are backing us. It’s not just the President saying we should do tariffs. There are many Republican leaders, governors, etc., making the same case. So, yes, it’s elected leaders. They were voted in by somebody.

Now, we’re not going to go after that somebody. It’s the actions of those people, the elected leaders. We want those somebodies, who voted whatever way they did, to feel welcome here. I think the Premier was very clear at the Invictus Games, and many times since, that the Americans are our friends. That’s in Montana, in Idaho, in Washington, in Oregon, in California, all the way through.

We’re continuing our marketing efforts to America — no question — as we also do elsewhere across the world and across Canada. That’s not going to stop.

I think the assumption the member is making is that tourism is going to go down in his region. Folks in the region, so far, to me, have said that the bookings are continuing to keep on apace, that they’re continuing to see strong interest. I hope that doesn’t come to the assumption that tourism is going to go down because of this threat.

Many in the tourism industry have been telling me that they think tourism could increase because our dollar is low right now, quite low compared to the American dollar, and many Americans see incredible value in coming here. I think that will continue. We’re welcoming people. I hope we can continue to be those welcoming people, despite the threats we’re getting from our American neighbours.

The Chair: A reminder to members that questions are to be asked through the Chair.

Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[5:10 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Shifting gears a little bit, back to resort municipalities specifically, could the minister please update us here on how much tax revenue and net tourism revenue resort municipalities collected this past fiscal year?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t have the specific numbers the member mentions. Maybe it would help if he explains what he’s looking for and a bit of detail on what he’s hoping to get from that information. There’s some information out there. Some of that’s held in Finance; some of that’s still being collated. But I don’t have that information to give him today.

Scott McInnis: What I’m getting at is…. I’m going to get to the resort municipality initiative funding, but I’d like to start with what sort of tax revenue the resort municipalities collectively are generating for the province.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t have it broken down by city in terms of all tax revenues that have come through to a resort municipality. So if somebody buys a burger at the local restaurant, I don’t have that broken down to what PST came in and then the income tax for that specific person working in that facility.

I can’t get the member that level of detail, but I can say that we know the resort municipalities provide huge economic return to the province. They are incredibly valuable for both the jobs that are inherent in those communities, but also that we have them as places that draw people — they’re magnets, in a sense —from all over the world.

We’re working with mayors of resort municipalities to look at some of the challenges that they’re facing in terms of infrastructure, in terms of how they pay for themselves being tourism destinations and jurisdictions. I think I know the issues that some of them have. They look at water, they look at sewage, they look at some of the bills that they’re expected to pick up, which their residents are worried about dealing with because they are large costs.

And they’re large costs which are for tourism, not for the residents, in that sense. Of course, residents are not always happy, but they understand the need to pay for things like water and sewage. I think where some of them draw the line is: “Well, we shouldn’t have to pay so that we can add more hotels or so that we can have more tourists come into our communities.” Tourism should pay for itself, in that sense, is the argument that I hear them making.

I’ve had great conversations so far with a number of the mayors around issues of resort municipalities and infrastructure in particular. We’re looking at that to try and develop a longer-term strategy so that growth will pay for that growth, in a sense, Without getting too into the weeds in the details…. Those conversations are still going and will be. I certainly support the work the mayors are doing, and I’m excited that we get to play a role in helping them address some of the issues they face so that we can grow tourism in those regions and beyond.

I think, at this stage….

I’m getting the nod that I’m supposed to wrap, because the time has come. But I’m assuming the critic wants to come and ask some questions in two weeks’ time. We’ve done so well. I’d hoped to answer them all today, but I know the member will have more. I can count on that.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.