Is this the same Kevin Kreuger that has repeatedly shown his utter lack of knowledge in the cultural arena time and again; who seriously needs to be pulled from anything close to that position.

Real working artists need that 10M, not some bogus festival days pulled out of some PR spinners butt. Run by who? People who are unfamiliar with how festivals are actually managed? (see the miserable failure Tall Ships/Sea Fest debacle).

TEN MILLION??? are you serious?? You nickle and dime the arts community STEALING moneys promised to them, only to turn around and give an unproven, unplanned, poorly managed/conceived event that costs 10 (plus) times as much as any other festival I know?

How does this HELP ANYONE???

Stop trying to pretend you care, or even understand Kevin, just resign in disgrace already. Its clear you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and we'd all be better off if you drowned yourself like an unwanted kitten. Anyone got a burlap sack? I'll do it for you -- we'd all be better off. 

Why should "artists" get free money from the government. Wouldn't that money be better spent if you gave it to single mothers or seniors with health problems or training for unemployed teenagers or the homeless or rehabilitating drug addicts or to cover medical costs of poor people or ............ 

It's not "free" money. Health costs billions, arts cost a pittance. Provinces spend a small amount on culture because culture has proven to be indispensable in more ways than can even be counted here, including health and seniors. And is a far cheaper way of doing that than any other. The money isn't "free money" to artists. It's for the people of BC, all of whom get to reap the benefits, in one way or another, of a province with its own culture and vibrant communities. Whether they are conscious of it or not. Arts funding keeps culture affordable for all British Columbians, not just the rich, and encourages freedom of though, innovation and creativity, tolerance and 1001 other indispensable things. It's not about "free money to artists." By the way, every sector receives "free money" so let's not single out artists as if they're freeloaders. Let's not even TALK about forestry. For every dollar spent on arts, its return is infinitely better than what the forestry subsidies yield. 

To Bowser,
a common thought, i know. quick version - throughout history, the 'arts' have been supported by the collective, with the thought that they are important and are part of a civilized, cultured society. But maybe a better argument is to understand is that for every gov't dollar spent on the arts, the government receives $1.38 in tax revenue (their own study) to put towards health/education and other worthy programs you allude to. 

Sorry Bob, throughout history the "arts" have not been supported by the collective, but by the upper class. "Artists" were beholden to kings, church officials and the like. The average person didn't bother with "art" because it didn't add to the betterment of the family or the home. I don't understand why you think we should support someone who puts out a product that won't survive in the marketplace. If any other businessperson puts out a product that sucks, they go out of business. If an "artist" puts out a product that sucks, we should give them money??? When we solve the real problems of society, perhaps then we can subsidize all the "artists" of the world. By the way, no one has bothered to answer my question - "wouldn't that money be better spent if you gave it to single mothers or seniors with health problems or training for unemployed teenagers or the homeless or rehabilitating drug addicts or to cover medical cost of poor people or.... Isn't that the real question here - Just how important is art when we have real issues to deal with? 

Margaret, If you get money just because you are an "artist", then it's free. 

Bowser
OK here we go again
Firsty I am a painter I make paintings that do sell in the Market Place, are shown in a gallery run by a private citizen at his expense and is free to everyone in society to come and see, and no it is not intimidating, and many galleries show work as challenging as our funded institutions. I still make a pretty meager wage and yet have been able to raise substantial monies for a number of charities through the donation of my work. Hows your charity work going? I am not a fan of the current administration of the arts council but at the moment as its being decimated that’s a bit of a moot point.
When the Media says “artist” the public think goofy artist in a funny hat making a crappy painting getting your tax dollar. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money goes to Arts organizations that administer theatres , festivals, childrens groups community art events, etc, etc.
I notice you chose to ignore Bobs comment that the funding of art creates revenue that can be reinvested. But I will try to answer your question
What do you mean by that money? Why the BC place roof over hospitals and daycare and homlessness, I agree these are pressing issues, but they are not mutually exclusive they are the same problem, we have allowed our elected officials make us feel grateful if they spend some of our own money on us. You have the same argument as someone who says if I don’t have children why should I pay school taxes? The answer of course is because you went to school.
Why doesn’t the auto industry foot the bill for the roads? Why do we have playing fields and parks? Why sporting arenas?When you see a city gardener down on their hands and knees do you curse that they are taking free money?
On one hand you propose humanitarian caring values, taking care of single mothers, rehabilitation, training , values that are not based on monetary capitalistic values, but on compassion. What was the ancient tribal value of art? I think it was a prayer for common survival and a belief in tomorrow. It is the arena where the real issues we need to deal with can be dealt with, without culture itself there is no reason to deal with any of the issues you bring up, single Mom that’s your problem get a job. Art is to help foster and create the type of concern for others you are showing, perhaps you were lucky enough to find it elsewhere , family , religion, don’t know. If we stop funding art then it will be ok to stop funding libraries , then clinics then hospitals.
Enjoy the next time you walk in a public park and if you see a gardener take time to thank them.
Ps
Your synopsis of art patronage was highly Eurocentric and I think (the common people)have bettered their homes and families even in that tradition for centuries, did you really not have any art in your home?