Charles Dalfen seems to do most of his talking from behind a podium, usually in some cavernous convention hall, delivering one of a small number of stock speeches about TV drama, or third-language satellite services, or the merits of the Broadcasting Act.

His audience – be they broadcasters or union reps or politicians – is not always happy with what he has to say, and there are few smiles in the room. He’s always in a suit. A good suit. Dalfen is one of those fellows you can’t picture in anything but a good suit.

Except, it turns out, on the afternoon before a Canada Day long weekend when the chair of the CRTC, already winding down and away from the office, is all smiles, arriving for an interview at his daughter’s Toronto home in shorts, sandals and a T-shirt.

He looks pretty relaxed, considering some of the hurricanes he and the commission have been through recently. The CRTC’s recent approval of Canada’s first three satellite radio services, following last year’s controversial shutdown of Quebec’s CHOI-fm, the approval of al-Jazeera and the wrangling over RAI’s eventual place on Canadian airwaves, to say nothing about its policy on TV drama, have kept the federal agency in the news and on op-ed pages since last spring.

Sipping an icy glass of orange juice, his feet up on the coffee table, Dalfen explained the current thinking at the CRTC.

Playback: The CRTC took a lot of heat for last year’s rulings about CHOI, al-Jazeera and RAI. Were you surprised by the public reaction or all the political noise?

Charles Dalfen: The numbers [of pro-CHOI protestors] were really surprising. It was even more intense than we expected.

PB: And why so much political noise? Was it because of the upcoming federal election?

CD: I don’t think that had anything do with it. In my mind there was no connection at all.

These days we are at the cusp of value evolution, demographic evolution and technological change, and the toughest decisions, those decisions, occurred right at the point where technology and values and demographics are changing. The decisions become very difficult, very impact-ful ones. But one is guaranteed not to please everyone.

PB: The CRTC is supposed to be politically at arm’s length. Do you ever feel like the arm is getting shorter?

CD: There were some comments made during the election about one particular file, RAI. But that didn’t affect our work. These were public statements; these weren’t phone calls or arm-twisting.

The only decision that represented a change, if you like, was RAI. But it was a change that we ourselves telegraphed in the decision. Some might say ‘Oh, you made it because of political pressure.’ Who knows? It certainly wasn’t the thinking inside. The discussion turned on the demographics.

PB: Speaking of new technology, how do you respond to the criticism about satellite radio? People are saying that by setting Cancon levels at 10% that the CRTC is being too kind to the American-backed channels.

CD: We try to lever the technology that’s available to us. But we can’t always do that.

[The American satellite owners] offered us a lot less than we required of them, and we could have said no. But this wouldn’t be effectively levering the technology. That wouldn’t be effectively countering the grey market. That wouldn’t be giving our artists the exposure they need, and it wouldn’t be giving the remote and underserved communities of Canada, which are now covered by satellite, access to it.

The prospect of having Canadian signals on Canadian birds, we were told, ‘Ain’t gonna happen.’

PB: As satellite radio grows, would you revisit the Cancon levels?

CD: Certainly. As it catches on, we can look to licence renewals as the same sort of exercise we did for 35 years in conventional radio.

PB: If the CRTC thinks traditional-style Cancon still works on radio, why not apply that to television? Aren’t you sending mixed signals by offering ad incentives to the TV networks?

CD: The requirements for drama over the past 25 years do not co-relate with increased viewing of Canadian drama. Bumps of Canadian drama viewing – not big bumps – occur when there’s a big infusion of funding. Say, when CTF was founded. You don’t see it when CTV is forced to do so many hours of drama or Global is forced to do so many hours. [See story, below.]

PB: You’re saying that what works for radio doesn’t work for TV?

CD: In radio we went from [Cancon levels of] 20%, 30%. We’ve been at 60% in TV since the start, and yet we haven’t succeeded in getting the same degree of success and resonance. I don’t quite know why. I don’t know whether the incentives will work. I’m hoping they will.

PB: But the incentives – as the unions keep repeating – don’t have any teeth. How do you respond to criticism that you’re soft on broadcasters?

CD: The charge we are getting, after CHOI, is either we’re not tough enough or, when we get tough, they say ‘Oh, you’re too tough.’

I want the situation to be fair… I want broadcasters to take their commitment seriously. And by and large they do. But those, like the unions, who really are still pressing for requirements, they ought to take stock of the situation at licence renewal time. Appear as interveners and make whatever point they want to make.

PB: You’re still firm, then, that there will be no rethink of the 1999 TV Policy?

CD: Not until we’ve given the incentive program a real shot.

PB: The recent federal budget talked about giving the CRTC the power to lay fines. What’s the status of that?

CD: It’s been discussed. Our position is that it would be a useful extra tool, [but] I don’t think it would be used very much.

PB: No? Why not use them to enforce licence conditions?

CD: If I’m going down a street that says 40km/h and I drive 60km/h, it’s very clear what the issue is. Not fulfilling a condition of licence, unless it’s precise, you’ll have a hard time with it.

PB: But conditions are clearly defined.

CD: A lot are well defined, but you have to co-relate it to conditions that are very specific, say, not keeping proper logs.

PB: Given the poor performance of Toronto1 and the collapse of Craig Media, was the commission, in hindsight, too optimistic when it opened the door for a new Toronto station?

CD: It was before my time, but I don’t think so. The commission [did] a market assessment and looked at the financial health of stations and profits in the marketplace. But even then, the onus is on the applicant to show that a market can accept it and that they’re the right applicant.

PB: And Craig Media was the right applicant? They made many mistakes, not the least of which was grossly underestimating the competition in the Toronto ad market.

CD: But when you look at it, it was a licensee that had established itself very well at the time in Western Canada… The Broadcast Act talks about variety and diversity and choice, and this was a different format. In retrospect, we know what happened. But now it’s in the hands of a licensee that has proven itself in French Canada to be very successful.

PB: But some analysts doubt that T1 will ever be profitable. And a lot of people seem to think that Quebecor only took it so it could buy its way into English Canada.

CD: Perhaps it was one reason, but I doubt they’d have done that if they thought they had a hopeless business plan. I can’t conceive of that.

I don’t want to second-guess the analysts, but I know from the scuttlebutt… that there were other bidders pretty close in dollar value to what Quebecor offered.

The history is interesting because the last two stations licensed in the Toronto market, over 30 years ago, were City and Global. City was on very shaky legs for a long time, and survived. Global – the original owners had to turn it over to new owners. In both cases, they’ve been great successes.

PB: Talking about technological change. Do you accept the argument that – because of digital transmission, the Internet, and so forth – we’re moving into this so-called spectrum-less world? One in which there’s limitless room for all broadcasters?

CD: I think it’s fair to say we’re moving in a direction where spectrum scarcity is less of a factor.

PB: Will we ever outgrow the need for a federal gatekeeper?

CD: Maybe. But because Canada has attempted to ensure that we maximize our resources, our broadcast services, we don’t allow as free a market as the spectrum-less world would suggest.

Therefore, someone has to allocate spectrum, or genres, or market. We’re still going to need, as a country, someone to do that. Regulation exists because the market isn’t perfect.