Arts Minister Ida Chong faces tough questions in committee

The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Ida Chong has indicated that the contentious Spirit Festivals of the past two years will not continue.

At a parliamentary meeting yesterday to deliver her ministry estimates, Chong faced tough questions from the opposition and, according to Hansard transcripts, the following exchange took place between the minister and the NDP arts critic Spencer Chandra Herbert:

S. Chandra Herbert: ”¦Is the ministry going to be continuing with its spirit festivals?

Hon. I. Chong: I’m not anticipating continuing with the spirit festivals.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m glad that the minister has decided that government-directed culture is not as successful as community-directed culture.”¦

The minister would not commit, however, to giving the $10 million in Arts Legacy funding to the B.C. Arts Council for distribution:

S. Chandra Herbert: Just on the $10 million that’s currently sitting in the Ministry of Finance. Is the minister advocating for all $10 million of that to go to the B.C. Arts Council, as has been suggested before, or will some of that money be held to be directed at the minister’s whim? Or will it all be through a peer-reviewed process, as the B.C. Arts Council does?

Hon. I. Chong: When the arts legacy fund was established in Budget 2010, it was never envisioned that it was to be the base funding or added funding to the B.C. Arts Council. I don’t expect, even though that was obviously the desire or request or ask at the time it was established, that that would be the case going forward.

As we saw last year, there were some dollars that we were able to secure and provide to the Arts Council. It’s an annual process, and we are going through that currently.

The purpose of the arts legacy fund, really, was to seek out opportunities, to take a look at what we could do with the arts and culture community and with our communities. I think that was what was important when it was established.

I do, and I hope that the member doesn’t feel offended by this, take a slight objection to his comments earlier — and I don’t know if he meant it — that he felt I thought that community festivals were not as important. That was the purpose of the arts legacy fund, to try some things that we thought could be useful.

Again, we have an opportunity, because it is a legacy fund — and there is an annual process to evaluate, review, see what worked well, continue those that did, or not — to find other ways to support the arts and culture community with respect to those dollars that are available.

Pressed on the issue of restoring gaming grants to arts organizations, and the timeline for the review of gaming promised by Premier Christy Clark, Chong could not be pinned down:

S. Chandra Herbert: My question to the minister — I know my colleague asked it, so I got a bit of an answer, but I was hoping for a more fulsome answer: when will the gaming review start? When will the person be appointed, and what is the timeline?

Hon. I. Chong: I would like, obviously, for that individual to start as quickly as possible. We are still taking a look at a number of individuals, prominent individuals, who would be able to do this. Obviously, we want the individual to have the time to do this.

At one point I believe we said it would be a retired judge, but I think we’ve now moved it to a prominent individual, because sometimes retired judges don’t have as much time on their hands as they think they do. But we’re still exploring that. As soon as we’re able to make that appointment, we certainly will want to talk to the individual as to what their schedule is and how quickly they can move on this review.

So unfortunately, I’m not able to give you an exact date, but I am as anxious as he is that we move on this as quickly as we can.

The minister also offered little hope to adult arts groups hoping to secure gaming grants:

S. Chandra Herbert: ”¦A number of people, particularly in the arts community, that I’m hearing from are being told: “Get grant applications in. You never know. Even if you might be slightly outside of the bounds of what the eligibility is, the government may have some leftover money.”

So they may decide to send this in and just try to fit the grant criteria as opposed to what the non-profit’s mandate might be. That’s a concern, I think — when mandate creep starts to happen and you start checking boxes in an attempt to get funds to pay for what are probably really crucial programs but maybe don’t fit the narrow eligibility criteria that the government has.

I see the famous Ursula Cowland from the gaming branch back there, who is known all over the province, that’s for sure. Is there any thought on how that might happen, or should arts folks only apply if they meet those strict criteria?

Hon. I. Chong: What I would say to the member that in his discussions with the groups that he’s meeting with, certainly he can ask those groups to send in their applications based on the criteria that are currently available without the review being concluded — or started and then concluded. I cannot speculate on what changes there may or may not be, but there is currently an application process. There are currently criteria that are well known to individuals.

I guess the real bottom line is that if you aren’t sure and you don’t put in an application, we can’t even evaluate it. If you at least put in an application, we may have an opportunity to evaluate it. And the member has referred to the famous Ursula Cowland, of course. She reviews these on a regular basis and takes into consideration whether or not they fit the criteria.

So the best suggestion I should give to the member is: ask these groups to submit their application. They will be evaluated based on the criteria we currently have, and we’ll see whether or not there’s a possibility.

In another heated exchange, the minister echoed her predecessor Minister Stephanie Cadieux in wanting to avoid comparing arts funding between provinces:

S. Chandra Herbert: ”¦B.C. is, of course, and has been for many years the last place in all of Canada in terms of per-capita support for arts and culture. Does the minister feel this is acceptable? Where does she believe that we need to be in Canada in terms of investing in the arts?

Hon. I. Chong: I suppose that to be able to use a statistic or a comparator like per-capita spending on arts and culture would have more relevance if, in fact, every province used the same basic statistics and included the same areas right across. But unfortunately, that’s not the case. For example, here in British Columbia, what contributes to our arts and culture community is our film industry, and what is not included is the $150 million worth of tax credits, as an example, that we provide.

Every province does it differently. I understand, as well — my staff have advised — that in some provinces what they include in spending includes things like parks and libraries. So without a real apples-and-apples comparison, we actually cannot go to a conclusion that this is the best way to spend dollars.

What I can say, though, is that here in British Columbia we are the second-highest in personal giving to charities. We also have the highest in donation rates towards arts and culture. Perhaps the reason why people are able to provide and to give is because we have the benefit of a strong economy.

However, having said that, I want to say that what’s also important is not always looking at the inputs — what we provide to a sector — but also the outputs. I’m pleased to say that in terms of outputs, here in British Columbia we have more artists per capita than any province. So clearly we are doing things right here. It’s either the environment we have or the other measures we have, other tax credits we have, that allow artists to thrive in our province versus others.

So while I appreciate that it’s easy to go to a comparator like a per-capita spending, my understanding is that because of the varying degrees of things that are included or excluded, it really doesn’t make for a good comparison. The critic may disagree. I understand that, but at the same time I think that we do need to take a look at what we’re doing here in British Columbia and what we’re actually receiving in terms of outputs.

The critic may disagree. I understand that. But at the same time, I think we do need to take a look at what we’re doing here in British Columbia and what we’re actually receiving in terms of outputs.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the minister doesn’t agree with the Statistics Canada figures, which show that we’re far back in per-capita support for the arts, I’m wondering if the minister would ask her ministry staff to do a real apples-to-apples comparison. This has been a consistent issue that we have raised for many years, and the response is always: “Well, there’s no apples-to-apples comparison.” If the government is proud of its record of investing in the arts, will they do an apples-to-apples comparison?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, if the statistics are going to be used in a relevant manner, then perhaps there would be some rationale for spending the time and effort into trying to gather that information.

I’ve already provided the member with some of the areas that are included or excluded. As I say, we have”¦. I believe the film industry contributes greatly to the arts and culture community. Tax credits that we provide here, which aren’t necessarily provided in every province, are not included. As I’ve indicated, some provinces include things like parks and library.

I think what’s most useful is that when we make investment here, we see the outputs. If the outputs are that we are able to have more artists per capita than any other province, I think that’s a good outcome.

If the member is interested in finding out the areas where we do contribute towards the arts and culture community and wants to have a briefing with staff, I can certainly set that up. But as I say, when we are investing in dollars, I’m prepared, more importantly, to focus on what we’re able to achieve with those dollars.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, if the minister doesn’t like the per-capita-investment argument, it would be very simple to do an apples-to-apples. We’re talking about, in particular, the B.C. Arts Council and the gaming grants. I can tell the minister how much money is being dedicated out of those funds and the small amount that’s being paid towards the ministry itself. It’s not difficult to call up the government of Alberta and say: “How much are you investing in non-profit arts and culture activities?” It’s not difficult to do that across Canada.

So I’m not sure”¦. This government loves to talk about per-capita investments in transit, in health care and in a whole bunch of other areas — not just the outputs, but also the investments. Why won’t this government do that for arts and culture?

Hon. I. Chong: I believe I’ve already answered it. We’re going to be focusing on the outcomes based on the investments we make in arts and culture.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the answer is that they know the answer, and it is: yes, B.C. is last. If it wasn’t, they would say so.

It’s very easy to do. I’ve certainly tried my hand at it, as have many others, and the results consistently show that B.C. is last in per-capita investment in the arts. Until the minister finds a way to show us that that’s not the case, those are the numbers that we’ve got.