We’ve been getting a lot of flack recently for a column I wrote last month questioning the sense of supporting seven production centers. I pointed out that nowhere in the world is there a country that supports seven film and TV production centers.

People have been cornering Playback writers, sales staff, publishers, and even the president of Brunico Communications, waving fingers demanding to know what we’ve got against regional producers.

The answer is we’ve got nothing against them. Through my job I have encountered some very talented producers from places like Regina, Winnipeg and Halifax.

My only question is – and it is still one that has not been answered despite all the finger-waving and letter-to-the-editor-writing – why are small producers in the biggest production centers not being afforded the same advantages as regional producers despite the fact that they have proven themselves able and talented and are struggling like heck against the turning tide of a market slowdown just like everyone else?

The fact is, much of the advantage comes via progressive provincial production tax credits in such provinces as Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and Playback has always held these up as enlightened jurisdictions doing right by their constituents. There’s nothing wrong with giving yourself some advantage, particularly if the competition, in this case Ontario, doesn’t deem its film and TV sector as worthy of competitive credits. It would be hypocritical in a country that has helped build an industry by attracting U.S. productions through appetizing labor tax credits to lament regions doing likewise.

But why are so many federal policies focussed on shifting the balance? I’m referring to regional bonuses in the CTF, the CRTC’s priority programming rules and the commission’s hearings in which broadcasters are regularly awarded licences based partly on regional production funding.

The latter point illustrates the issue nicely when you look at some recent broadcaster acquisitions. Since 2000, CHUM has committed to benefits packages totaling $27 million in Alberta and B.C. These include $7 million over four years for the purchase of CIVI in Victoria (The New VI) plus $15.4 million paid over seven years for its 2001 purchase of Vancouver station CKVU (Citytv Vancouver). Now, in its 2004 application for the licences of Craig Media, CHUM is committing an additional $4.5 million to Alberta-based producers. Likewise, in 2001, CanWest Global, through its Western Independent Producers Fund, committed $24 million over seven years to regional production.

Now, before the letter-writing begins, let me make myself clear, I’m not saying CHUM and CanWest shouldn’t be investing in the communities into which they expand. Investment in local programming is critical. If you’re broadcasting in a community, you should make every effort to reflect that community. But most of these funds are being spent on national productions.

Doesn’t it make sense that as these broadcasters grow their national reach, production spending should expand nationally? That means Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Ontario producers should be given equal access to production and development investments.

Indeed, in its latest application, CHUM acknowledges as much by creating a national fund of $4.5 million, which amounts to half of its $9 million priority programming commitment. Now that makes sense.