I was elected to provincial and federal arts lobbying organizations. I joined arts service organizations, and I even went so far as to establish arts lobbying organizations. I was a co-founder of both the BC Touring Council and the Alliance for Arts and Culture in Vancouver - all in an effort to improve public, education and government support for, and respect for, the arts. I read, went to conferences, and attended workshops and courses. My work was my hobby, I worked ridiculous hours and I was deliriously happy with my chosen profession.

My career was born on the backs of government job creation projects with names such as the Local Initiatives Program (LIP), Young Canada Works Program and others. These were grant programs of the then Ministry of Labour, and were not arts grants per se, but they did more for cultural development in this country than can be imagined. A whole generation of artists and arts administrators got on-the-job training through these job creation programs, and many of us got careers out of the experience. When the programs came to an end, they had facilitated the birth of innumerable small arts organizations devoted to the visual arts and culture.

As I write this editorial, there is a show at Vancouver's esteemed Contemporary Art Gallery (CAG) of works from their collection. That collection is the result of work done by artists hired through job creation project grants obtained by the City of Vancouver's Office of Cultural Affairs. The City-supported LIP grants "hired" artists to work at making their art. Artists were paid salaries through the program, so that the work they did became the property of the City. This initiative led some individuals to establish the CAG to steward the collection. This is just one example of hundreds of publicly funded job creation projects across the country that were supremely successful and which created new arts organizations.

Job creation grants greatly expanded the number of not-for-profit arts organizations, as these grants were not available to individuals or non-constituted organizations. And, as the job creation projects wound down, the not-for-profit arts organizations turned to the Canada Council, National Museums Assistance Program, and provincial and municipal governments for funding assistance. The demand on the Canada Council grew at an unprecedented rate.

The termination of the job creation projects was one part of government austerity programs. Whereas the demand for support was growing, governments began cutting back on arts funding. The Canada Council funding was frozen, as was Museum Assistance Program funding. During the 80s and 90s, many of the arts groups established under job creation programs folded. Arts groups that survived the 80s and 90s, often did so by creating a product that succeeded in the marketplace because earned income became a major factor in arts funding. Theatre, dance and opera companies started focusing on what would sell. They had to have sold out houses to break even. Edgy, experimental work disappeared from public arts programs.

Now, in this new millennium, one wonders if there will be increased support from government for arts organizations. Everyone hopes there will be - especially for the Canada Council. In 2007, the Canada Council will be 50 years old. The anniversary provides government with an occasion to celebrate the achievements of the Council with a significant infusion of funds. The artists and arts organizations of Canada should begin now to educate their audiences of the importance of an increase to the Council.

I grew up in the arts believing that the Council was created through the probating of two large wills. I believed that the wills of two successful Canadian industrialists had created such large succession payments for the federal government, that the government used to create the Council. Tim Porteous, a Vancouver resident and a former Director of the Council, has made it his mission of late to correct this mistaken impression that I and many other arts advocates share. Mr. Porteous believes it is important to correct this impression because it has implications for the future of Council funding.

He wants people to know that whereas the two wills were probated at roughly the same time, and that they did produce enormous income for the federal government, the money earned by the government went into the general revenues of the government at the time. Whereas the earning of this income coincided with the decision of parliament to release funds through the Privy Council to create the Canada Council endowment, the funding which created council did NOT come from the wills. It came from a parliamentary allocation.

Mr. Porteous believes it is important to understand that the wills were not the source of funding because for years, opponents to political funding of the arts created the myth that funds from "private enterprise" had created the Council. Mr. Porteous wants us to remember that the federal government of Canada created the Canada Council, and that means we, the people, can expect the government can be called upon again to inject a second large cash grant to augment the Council's endowment. And what better opportunity for us all to announce our expectation of increased funding for Council than in these years leading up to the Council's 50th anniversary.

Get out your pens. Learn the addresses of your MPs, and after the next election, lets bombard federal politicians with the message that the Council, Canadian culture, and Canadian artists need more money.