The abrupt ampdc closure, with its resultant exodus of production and predicted erosion of infrastructure, starkly illustrates that whoever minds the pocketbook and calls the policy holds the reins of the film and tv industry in Canada.

What isn’t clear is the destination the various levels of government have in mind.

Budget cuts, while not singling out Canada’s big three cultural production hubs, deliver no indication of continued support. However, the budget also tantalizingly contains promise of trying to rustle up new funds.

On the other side of the schizoid coin is regulation. Industry Minister John Manley gave an indication of federal headspace in recent remarks about the qualities they’re looking for in a crtc head, saying there should be less need for the crtc’s regulatory role as competition increases, and that Mr. Spicer’s successor should be more in line with government wishes.

Besides understanding the intricacy of unborn technology, the crtc’s independence and its non-partisan nature are its greatest strengths.

Given that the crtc goes to excruciating lengths to form decisions balanced by both consumer and industry input, the curtailing of an arm’s-length body’s powers is disturbing, unless your strength lies in political lobbying.

While Industry has struck down two crtc calls, evidence for the defence of political goodwill is the recent spine-flaunting Cabinet rout of Hollywood studio interests. Ironically, Heritage Minister Sheila Copps is being lauded for defending a u.s. attack of new crtc ppv rules (which require dth providers to not cut Canadian distributors out of the loop on non-studio controlled pics), and it’s being marked as an auspicious indication of Copps’ attitude and ability to hang tough.

While regulatory decisions by their very nature are bound to rankle some, at the end of the day a non-partisan entity fortifying the Broadcasting Act still has a vital role to play. The ppv stance wherein Canada’s distinct market status is enshrined is one example, the uncompromising approach to the v-chip is another. While the verdict on the v-chip’s impact will take time (one query I’ve fielded is, ‘Can you program out the family stuff?’, while in the u.s. impact on content predictions range from all-Brady Bunch to a scapegoat for getting away with increased sex and violence), at least it’s an example of Canada taking control in yet another area fraught with trade land mines in maintaining sovereignty, since u.s. net product dominates much of Canada’s domestic airwaves.

As much as some crtc solutions are criticized as wrong-headed, at least its agenda isn’t as unpredictable (cave here, hang tough there) as the politics-driven ministries’. An independent crtc, shoring up Canadian infrastructure via Cancon watchdogging, is still worth the weight of interventions it wades through. Given the ppv decision, perhaps the film side of the biz could benefit from similar regulatory backbone infusions.

Especially while the jury is out on what cards government policy will ultimately deal via Industry and Culture