Ottawa, March 1995. The big angular building at 140 Rue de Promenade de Portage, in the Outaouais Room, better known as the hearings chamber in which which crtc chairman Keith Spicer had spent a good piece of the last six years. Pale gray walls, no windows, 11 flags, one Canadian and the 10 provinces, lined up behind the commissioners holding court in oversized chairs at the top of the room while a new face, George Addy, director of the Bureau of Competition, took the stand.

It was an entertaining morning that day, defying the yawn factor inherent to the Information Highway Advisory Council Hearings. There was the predictable open-market rhetoric from Addy, assertions that Canadian programming is good enough to survive separate rights market or no, and – an added twist – that Cancon funding mechanisms be scrapped and replaced by a direct subsidy from the government, which would make the call on ‘meritorious’ Canadian entertainment programming and allot resources accordingly.

Spicer sat impassively through the presentation, leaning left in his chair. When it was over, he let the other commissioners ask questions of The Director, and then exercised his right as chairman to ask a few himself. Not questions, exactly. More like the unleashing of what a fellow commissioner calls the quintessential Keith: passionate but contained, blindingly articulate, a quiet thunder rolling a full 10-minute ad-libbed monologue that begged some practical advice from the bureau on how the commission was supposed to go about ‘squaring the circle between culture and competition.’

‘The only concrete answer from you was the idea of targeted subsidies. Maybe I’m biased as an old scribbler and newspaper editor, but the idea that you would want the government to target what ideas would get money is terrifying to me.

‘I find it grossly anomalous that on one hand you want marketplace and money completely uncontrolled yet you’re recommending enormous control of the marketplace of ideas. Surely the marketplace of ideas is more important and it has to be reconciled in the greater marketplace of money, because to put it crassly, that’s what this is about.

‘The cable industry, the telephone industry, many players all want to make more money. But what we need from you is to help us see Canada as more than a marketplace but as what it is: a country, a society, a style of civilization we have spent two and a half centuries building here and I think most Canadians want to keep it.

‘We’re going to have to put together these parallel monologues; people who say competition is everything, versus those who say culture is everything. We need to know in practical, specific terms how to make sure Canada remains on its own screens – that Canada remains, period. That’s really what this is about.’

Addy stared blankly. Then there was a brief response. ‘I understand your dilemma. I’m here today to discuss my views on competition, and quite candidly, I can’t give you much help. I’m not an expert on Canadian culture and content. I don’t have expertise in these issues.’

Case closed. But it was an argument – preserving Canadian culture while managing the government’s competition agenda – that would take on a life of its own six months down the road when a parliamentary review of the crtc’s direct-to-home satellite exemption policy was ordered, a topic that even today instantly changes the tone of Spicer’s voice and his body language.

He’s looking all of his 62 years this morning, May 31, a morning person surviving on few hours sleep after last night’s roast in his honor, a show of respect from 80 industry execs who have alternately loved and hated him over the past seven years. He was in fine form apparently, keeping the room in stitches for the better part of an hour.

It is, by his own count, 33 days until the end of his term (at press time, a mere 18), and he is practically giddy with the prospect of leaving. In this issue of Playback, Spicer looks back over the years since Mulroney called him to 24 Sussex for coffee and a job offer, seven years which have seen unprecedented change in the broadcasting industry. He responds to criticism of his methods and approach, discusses violence of course, the commission’s relationship with the government, and talks about why exactly this merciless drive to inform the consumer of crtc processes.

Offered the chair

June 1989 was a bit of a heady month for Spicer, then editor of the Ottawa Citizen, who had received three job offers in the space of two weeks. President of a university, president of a major foundation, both forgotten after a meeting with Mulroney who had read several of his columns on free trade arguing that Canada must not give away its culture. ‘He said, `If you want to be in a place where you can do something about that, how about being chairman of the crtc?’ ‘

So it was off to the commission, with a mandate from the prime minister to shake up the institution, marching orders Spicer says were likely meant to appeal to his sense of adventure but also driven by the feeling that the closed-door antediluvian commission processes needed to evolve.

In the first two weeks, he launched three task forces examining broadcast regulation, telecom, and public hearings, all presented with an attitude and an approach that alienated everyone from his fellow commissioners to the building concierge. All would have cheerfully killed him, had he not been whisked away to travel across Canada for eight months as chairman of the Citizens’ Forum on Canada’s Future in November 1990.

Many clung to the hope that he wouldn’t return. It’s when Spicer rejected ambassador offerings from the Tory government and made clear he intended to finish what he started that things got nasty, with colleagues doing everything but picket on Parliament Hill to stop him from coming back.

They may have threatened but nobody quit, says Spicer in retrospect. He didn’t take it personally, rather doing what he does with the avalanche of criticism that regularly comes his way: tries to understand where it’s coming from.

‘I had my view of them and they had their view of me, but I didn’t consider it a backlash. What happened was a clash of cultures, the old culture and the new. I was sent in to renovate and refresh the place, and naturally, it upset some applecarts. I could have done it another way, taken the money and done nothing. I could have left the Vatican as it is, but I didn’t think that was my role.’

Nevertheless, how he managed in that role changed when he came back. The offering he made to the commissioners was to temper his my-way-or-the-highway approach, to make working harmoniously with them his first priority and asked that they do the same. ‘There was an explosion of happy smiles and that’s how it ended,’ he says today.

Well, not exactly. By all accounts Spicer had mellowed when he returned, extraordinarily collegial, soliciting opinions when he hadn’t done so the first 18 months. But none of it meant, over the subsequent six years, that he was any less a single-minded, ferocious opponent with the same bulldozing quality that was front and center at the beginning, says one commissioner.

‘The fights are incredible. He has an opinion and it’s like, `This is the way, the truth, and the light.’ He has this extraordinary ability to use language with color and vigor and he does it in both French and English. We fight and he makes me so mad. I use words I come to regret. But the confrontations are more productive than not. He makes you rethink your ideas.’

In service of public

Debating has been the core of Spicer’s career. A university professor in political science at six Canadian and u.s. universities, a journalist with The Globe and Mail, a host and commentator at the cbc and Radio-Canada, Canada’s first commissioner of official languages, the author of four books on foreign aid, Quebec politics and communication skills, the list goes on.

Since 1994, he’s been pushing the idea that the free exchange of information is the key to stopping third world conflicts. He is, say colleagues, fearless, outspoken, and sometimes radical. But perhaps none thought him so clearly the mad professor as when he came to the commission arguing that communicating with the consumer should be its first priority.

His ‘vision,’ he says – ‘too fancy a word for doing what’s sensible’ – was to make it clear to the public that the crtc is in the service of the public. Not just the service of the industry, the broadcasters and the cable guys, but in the service of the artists, the ethno-cultural groups, handicapped people, and any other Canadian who wanted some information. The reason: ‘Because it’s a democratic instrument, of course.’

If someone said he’d been 70% successful in reaching that goal, Spicer would be happy. The critics say his drive to open the crtc to the public has been only marginally successful, but nevertheless it has been without question a necessary, valuable exercise, he says.

‘The public doesn’t love every one of our 5,000 decisions a year, but I think they trust the process. I have never heard anyone say that the crtc process is crooked or not fair. They will say Spicer’s not the right guy or these commissioners aren’t the right people or we want another government, but I think it’s very revealing that they don’t attack the institution except for a very few rather thoughtless ideologues of free enterprise that say let’s scrap all regulation.

‘I’m a believer that every democracy needs to have an independent, transparent regulator. The alternative is you have ministers handing out licences to their friends or relatives. Nobody likes that, but that’s the alternative.’

Many argued that the people were peripheral to the process, but Spicer begged to differ. The stance is, say his critics, a snapshot of why Spicer has been the wrong man for the job. The big picture is always his concern. He abhors detail, figures, in a job made up mainly of managing the minutiae of the industry. The broadcasters fret licence conditions; he focuses on television violence, something he can sink his teeth into. ‘He thinks in terms of headlines. It frustrates people to distraction,’ says one broadcaster.

Point taken, says Spicer, but the p.m. didn’t appoint him because of his administrative prowess. His qualifications were that he was a cussedly independent man who was needed at the top to maintain the institution’s credibility. ‘The other was that I always try to keep my eye on the ball, which is principles. Principles can be as broad as the national interest.’

So headlines, yes, in the sense that ‘One is trying to stand for something, not being a simple weather vane or a total pragmatist.’ Headlines also in the sense of ‘elementary political literacy’ to communicate the issues. ‘I don’t apologize for that at all. I think the simple common sense of a newspaper man is very valuable to any organization.’

But the argument goes that a watchdog needs no principles; he only needs perform the functions inherent to the job. Spicer disagrees. It’s part of the chairman’s role to have ideals and to help change attitudes, he says. Case in point, the violence campaign which has left children’s television in a better state than he found it and hasn’t been so bad for the country and the commission as a whole.

‘I’m not saying another chairman would think the same. Every chairman brings his personal and professional background to bear and of course I brought to this job what I had to bring. Not everyone was wildly enthusiastic on the violence issue, but they all agreed that they would mandate me to do this and that I would keep them informed. There wasn’t a single dissenting voice and now they’re saying, `Hey, not bad. He wasn’t so crazy. We all look pretty good on this.’ ‘

The broadcasters are quick to say the next chairman needs to be more concerned with the business realities than Spicer has been, more action-oriented and less debate-hungry. But many point out that he may have been the best man to manage these transitional years (read: upheaval and chaos), which have hosted virile challenges from the u.s. government, the information highway groundwork, dth satellites, competition for long-distance telephone, new specialty channels and cable configurations, and the juggling and shuffling of media assets across the country.

‘Maybe it was good to have a guy like Keith in this period where there’s more questions than solutions,’ says one. ‘Someone who encourages debate and makes us keep defining who we are.’

Had his fill

Even Spicer, who likes a good fight more than most, had had his fill of free exchanges by the time the government reversed the crtc’s exempt licensing decision for dth services last December.

The processes of the precedent-setting order from the ministries of Heritage and Industry forced Spicer in front of the House of Commons and the Senate to defend the preservation of Canadian culture and the commission’s licensing decision which in effect blocked Power Corporation, owned by the Desmarais family in Montreal which includes Jean Chretien’s son-in-law, Andre Desmarais, from entering the Canadian dth market.

While Spicer was equal to the task, politics and personalities got in the way. Spicer will say little, but a friend sums the months up in one sentence: ‘Keith kept working hard for the right: (Power DirecTv chairman) Joel (Bell) kept winning in cabinet.’

It was, says Spicer, arguably the most difficult months of his tenure. ‘I would say it was a time principles came into play. Such as the principle of independent transparent regulation. To me that was the heart of the issue and it was my job to defend that. Secondly, to reconcile the defense of Canadian culture with a free marketplace. We did not indulge in ad hominem attacks. We spoke our piece without flinching, often faced with vociferous and not terribly well-informed attacks and I’m very glad we stood up to that.’

Bottom line is though, that the government vetoed the exemption clause and sent them back to a licensing process for dth. Speculation still runs high that the crtc is becoming progressively less able to maintain the cultural ideology behind the Broadcasting Act in the pro-competition environment. Spicer says no, that the exercise if anything, strengthened the crtc’s posture. Industry will always have its agenda to defend industrial interests, but the process laid clear for them why exceptional measures exist to protect and sustain the Canadian market.

‘This is not the first time there has been tension between the government and the crtc. But I think it’s good this happened at the beginning of the term for the new government because it gave them a cram course in why we need honest, independent, transparent regulation. I think some people that first came in with shall we say, a first impression, that the regulator was really there to give licences to who the government thought, and they didn’t really understand the history of how this regulation was built up by courageous commissioners and staff and the chairmen over 35 years. This is why we have a system that is envied and aped by many countries.’

With days until his successor is announced, Spicer can’t be goaded into naming the qualities he would like to see in the new chairman despite the fact that Industry Minister John Manley has been vocal about his criteria (someone who should share ‘the government’s vision’).

‘It is, of course, the Ministry of Heritage that makes this decision. But it’s a fascinating job for somebody with a very thick skin and a sense of humor who will do it his way and no doubt run into a few months of resistance as well.’

For many, cynicism would be the order the day, particularly the damned if you do, damned if you don’t nature of the job. (‘The cable industry told me on a panel one morning that they had lost $1.5 billion and they were blaming it all on me. I find it rather amusing now that some of the lobbyists from other places try to make out that I’m the big friend to the cable industry. That’s not the view of the cable industry, believe me.’)

But Spicer says he’s not more cynical. The past seven years have left him ‘a little more battle-hard,’ but he’s leaving in a good mood. ‘It’s made me want to go back to the free world and start something on my own again.’

The measure of success at the end of a tenure such as his is usually couched under ‘legacy.’ From the outside, his is the solo battle to get North America, the industries and the public, to think about violence on television. To Spicer, the gauge is twofold. First, while he’s as much of a slave to the sensual pleasures as the next person, there’s an equally compelling esoteric drive to leave the world a little better place than he found it. The second measure is always how interesting the journey, he concludes.

Leaving for Paris, ‘where I always feel 20,’ teaching media at the Sorbonne, with offers to teach from Stanford and Berkeley, books to write, businesses to start, attitudes to change, ‘the roller-coaster ride is not over.’

‘I think I’ll miss the crtc. At least once a year.’