I have been working professionally in the arts for just over thirty years. I am a baby boomer and part of a generation wherein more people self-identified as artists than had ever done so before. Times were good then, but we didn't know it and we wanted more from our governments, so I got very involved with advocacy. I picketed, I wrote, I met, and I voted—all in an effort to advance the arts to government, school board officials and the general public, and I founded or co-founded several arts organizations that still thrive today.

In spite of a lifetime of advocacy on my part plus the work of other arts advocates (individuals and professional lobbyists) all across the country, it seems to me that the "state of the arts" in Canada has only become worse. My take on what has happened is that we have moved from a British/European model of generous state support of the arts, to an American model that shifts the burden of arts funding to the marketplace, corporate sponsorships and private philanthropists. The problem with this model is that our population, spread out as it is along a thin, 3,000 mile line, does not have a sufficiently large pool of wealthy philanthropists and corporate head offices to underwrite our cultural needs. Consequently, the marketplace is playing a significant role in arts financing and programming is increasingly a marketing decision rather than a brave artistic one.

This situation is made human and real in the voices of my three companions: a curator, a musician and a craftsperson. Each of my three friends has moved through the impact of decreased government support of the arts in stages such as fear, pain, anger, acceptance and now depression. They, like all of us, have bills to pay and, as the expression goes, mouths to feed. Yet they do not have the time or financial or human resources they need to do their jobs well. They do their jobs "well enough," to pass public acceptance—sometimes even gaining critical and or popular acceptance—but they do not bring pride to their creators. I know the feeling. When I spend scores and scores of hours on a drawing, only to make a mistake, all I see from then on through the completion of the work, is the mistake. Even if everyone says, and seemingly sincerely, that they like my work, all I see is the mistake. For my friends it is the same, what they see is a compromise to what could have been if there were more time, and/or more money. A malaise, a numbness comes with acceptance of things being the way they are. My creative friends are sad and project an air of hopelessness. They have to continue to do substandard work to earn their living and they see no reason to believe things will change dramatically.

Or would they? The majority of arts administrators and artists of my acquaintance were of the opinion that things would drastically change for the worse had the New Conservatives been elected in the recent election. Why? Here is one reason. It is the party's official response to two questions from the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA), Canada's national arts lobby, that were posted on the CCA web site and circulated across the country.

CCA: "Would a Conservative government commit to renewal of the funding envelope for culture which has been known as Tomorrow Starts Today? This was a $560 million, three year initiative announced by the Liberals in May 2001; it was renewed for a further year (fiscal 2004-05). It includes additional monies for the Canada Council for the Arts and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. While there is no confirmation currently that this is ongoing funding, government spokespeople have indicated that it is the Liberals' intention to renew the full funding envelope in the fall."

CONSERVATIVE PARTY: "Our platform includes a commitment for the Auditor General to conduct an extensive audit of all federal granting programs to determine value for money, and we will act on her recommendations. And we will ensure that all granting programs are reviewed every five years on an ongoing basis. The Auditor General will be given the authority to examine the affairs of Crown Corporations and government-funded foundations."

CCA: "With regard to Canada Council and the CBC, your (earlier) comment was that no mention in the platform indicates status quo for funding — can you confirm that this would include the additional monies which had been provided to these particular institutions under the Tomorrow Starts Today funding?"

CONSERVATIVE PARTY: "As said above, under our platform, funding in these areas would be subject to the same scrutiny by the Auditor General as funding in any other government program Crown Corporations and government-funded foundations."

The Reform Party was notoriously negative about arts funding. The New Conservative Party, therefore, concerns me in regards to their arts policies because a healthy percentage of party members come from the former Reform Party. Were government funding further cut, however, I have no doubt at all about the devastation that would cause to the building of our national identity and culture.

My conversations now about arts and politics, arts and education or popular support for the arts are always depressing. And then comes along yet another article that keeps hope and conviction alive and re-energizes my soul. This one is the one I mentioned I read Canada Day morning in the Vancouver Sun. It was by Abigail Trafford and was reprinted from The Washington Post.

Ms. Trafford wrote about a study sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Institute of Mental Health and other organizations. Undertaken by George Washington University and with 300 men and women over the age of sixty-five as its subjects, the study assessed the health effects of participating in music, art, dance and poetry programs. Half the subjects (the "intervention arm") are participating in artistic programs while the "control group" go without. Both groups are in equal states of health, all live alone and the average age is eighty. The subjects are being monitored on a range of measures from physical strength to mental health and social behaviour. Ms. Trafford reports that preliminary findings are that impressive benefits were reported in the "intervention arm" population.

"After a year, those in the cultural study group were healthier than they were when the study began. They were also in better shape than those in the control group. They reported better overall health, fewer doctor visits, less use of medications, fewer falls and hip damage. They also reported less depression, less loneliness and higher morale."

The article is just one of so incredibly many scientifically valid academic studies that I have read throughout my life that prove the value of arts education to society. When I look back at history, all the great civilizations are remembered for their art. So many of the enlightened leaders we celebrate are known for their support of the arts. How have things sunk so low?

I have decided to keep a file of these articles now so that I can read them when I get depressed about the arts as I always do at election time—they are a good antidote to the depression that afflicts my artist friends and maybe one day, the information they contain will have a positive effect on a future generation of Canadians.