HE HAS A PAIR OF BlackBerrys on his desk, but his iPhone is what’s tucked in his jacket pocket. It goes with him always and everywhere.
He was first elected as MP in 2000, at the age of 24, in his Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, B.C. riding, but his official bio lists the former radio and TV reporter/commentator’s occupation as “broadcaster.”
He’s mentioned every now and then as a candidate for much higher office that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.
And while his cabinet colleagues struggle with the multi-billion dollar requests from the likes of car companies and other giant manufacturers to help them through the recession, he’s got a front row seat for the broadcasters’ same requests in front of two bodies: the Standing Committee for Canadian Heritage as it studies TV; and the CRTC, as it ponders some structural changes as well as license renewals for the private conventional stations.
We figured last week that while we were in Ottawa-Gatineau, we’d swing by the Hill to get the ministers’ view on the bedlam swirling through the Canadian media industry and what, if anything, he’ll be doing to help.
He agreed and what follows is an edited transcript of his conversation with Cartt.ca editor and publisher Greg O’Brien.
Greg O’Brien: I’ve been at the hearing this week across the river and have had a reporter here on the Hill at the Heritage Committee meetings – and you are well aware of the talk in the industry and the various words being used like “crisis” and “emergency”, so my first question for you is: What is the government’s position on additional help, either regulatory help, or direct revenue or advertising help for Canadian broadcasters?
James Moore: Well it was two weeks ago where the Prime Minister said that we are keeping our eyes open as to what might be available for broadcasters in order to help them. We haven’t made any commitments to them in the past and we’re paying attention to the hearings.
It’s a difficult time as well, as you know, to take into consideration what’s being said at the committee within the context where all the broadcasters are going through license renewals right now. It’s difficult, as the minister responsible for the CRTC or the Prime Minister, to things or signal things that may or may not be received in certain ways by the regulator.
So to your question, like the auto industry, the forestry industry, like any other industry being hit by this economy, we’re keeping our eyes and ears open about what possibilities may be there for independent government support. We haven’t made any commitments.
The great part of the problem with this that there is no real certainty within the industry about what are the cyclical problems in the industry and what are the structural problems.
GOB: The part that gets me is that the broadcasters keep repeating that the model is broken. But, if the model is broken, why just ask for more money but keep the same model, the same way of doing things? So, if you were or are contemplating help for the broadcasters, are you going to be asking them for a new business plan the same way you asked Chrysler or GM for one?
JM: I think anyone who can put two and two together can recognize that the industry is looking for support to transition to the new business models that each of them are going to pursue in their own different ways. And there’s no one set answer.
GM doesn’t come to the federal government or to the American government to say: “we want money to continue building H2s and H3s,” they say, “we need money and here’s what we’re going to do in terms of developing a new plan, we’re going to develop a more efficient transmission, we’re going to develop a new form of car that will be more consumer friendly that we think will sell,” and so clearly I think this is part of the problem of the debate.
People, the public, are reacting to the immediacy of the cyclical downturn of the economy that’s impacting the (broadcast) industry – and the industry itself is looking for answers and wondering what are the cyclical pressures and concerns and what are the structural pressures and concerns.
I think many of them know the kind of industry that will come out of it and what it will look like in their own business models and plans and I’m one who believes in that regard the government should let them design the kind of businesses they want to have come out of this – and not pre-suppose or pre-judge or regulate or arrest the kind of development that will likely be coming.
GOB: What if this is just a recession? How will the government justify okaying a fee for carriage, to use the main example, for broadcasters who have at the same time decided to do less local content?
JM: Obviously, that’s something where people are connecting those dots… It’s difficult to argue on the one hand that fee for carriage would generate $350 million for the industry but that taxpayers wouldn’t notice it. But we need to be careful that the regulators, who are responsible for fee for carriage, can make their own judgements about this.
I would say the role of the government is to reflect not just what the industry wants, but to also be conscious, first and foremost, what’s in the best interests of taxpayers. And I think what Canadians want is diversity in content. They want Canadian content and they see a role for government in supporting Canadian content – and they want to see as much competition as possible in all regions of the country.
And to that end, obviously the CBC plays a role in that and the Canadian government puts over a billion dollars into the CBC to make sure it is well-funded…
GOB: And you confirmed the $60 million (in additional funding) yesterday. Is there any more money available for the CBC?
JM: No. I confirmed that $60 million to the CBC in private… and I just reconfirmed that in committee. If there was any doubt about it, it’s only because the process of the House of Commons on the supplementary estimates that come before the House before the end of the spring session, it will be reaffirmed there – and there’s no mystery about it. I’ve let them know that they can go ahead and make their financing plans assuming that money is going to be there.
But what I was going to say is we’ve also created the Canada Media Fund, a $310 million fund built with partners and it is about creating content that is flexible, available on multiple platforms so that Canadians can get the choice that they want.
We’re obviously going to a media environment where we – not all Canadians, but a good majority – live in environments where we have choices. If Canadians want to watch something delivered by Canwest or by CTV or by CBC or by a minority language community’s broadcaster in their country, they can get their choice that way.
People aren’t saying, as in the case of where the A Channel pulls back, that we have less diversity. It’s true, but in the new media environment when you consider that the average Canadian watches 26 hours of television per week, and under the age of 25, it’s 12 hours a week, they don’t think “well I don’t have A Channel but I do have CBC.” That doesn’t really come into consideration for them. They buy their shows. They’ll go buy a whole season of Entourage on DVD and they’ll just watch it.
They’ll get The Office, you can buy episodes one at a time. You can watch what you want to watch. You might watch The Office live at a friend’s house, but if you miss it and you’re told the episode is good and you read the reviews online, you might download that one episode on your iPod and watch it.
GOB: Or they might use BitTorrent and get it free.
JM: Yeah. That’s a whole other issue of course. But you take my point that some people might say there’s a loss of diversity. I actually think if citizens who are engaged with new media – for example, I’ve got two BlackBerrys and I carry this with me all the time (his iPhone) – people who are engaged in new media know that there’s never been a better time for choice in media content.
Now obviously there is a transition going on – a generational question that’s at hand – and there are cost questions that are at hand and the regulator has to deal with those, the government has to deal with those and we address it in part with the Canada Media Fund to create content for different media.
GOB: With the world moving towards new media, to multiplatform, why tie the fund to a rule that says in order to access it, there has to be one part of (a project) that creates for the TV platform? Why not just open it up and say, “okay, if you want to create video for online and mobile, and forget TV, you can have access to the fund, too.”?
JM: There will be some of that in there. It won’t just be exclusive to TV because it’s the merging of the New Media Fund and the Canadian Television Fund.
GOB: But the way I read it is that if you’re going to get money from the fund, at least one of the multiple platforms you create for has to be TV.
JM: It’s part of it but there will be funds set aside for content available on multiple media… and the independent board, not I, will make those decisions.
GOB: How far away are we from establishing that new board?
JM: The fund itself will be up and running April 1st, 2010, so obviously the board will be in place by then. And it will operate independently and decide how to best spend those funds.
You know, you talk to younger Canadians and they’re not worried about the media environment. They are fully engaged in new technologies and new opportunities that are there. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t real problems with the industry, but I’ve never had in my lifetime more access to more channels to more content in more diversity, in more languages – and on more platforms that I want to watch them in.
GOB: I’m actually a big believer in local news, local content. I got my start in media working for the Tilbury Times. I grew up in a small town and am a big believer in local news and I think that even if CH Hamilton, for example, goes away, I think local news will still be there. It will rise up in some other way, whether the cable company takes the lead or some guy with a web cam takes the lead.
The thirst for local news is still there…
JM: Like you, I used to work in a local newsroom in Prince George.
GOB: Radio, right?
JM: Well, it was all combined together. I used to do television and radio commentaries. It was PGTV and they also owned Hits 101 FM and CKPG, the AM news/talk station, so they kind of had their fingers in all the pots… and that was back in 1998-2000, when I was elected.
(Ed Note: Pattison Broadcasting still owns all three: CKPG is now an E! affiliate, the FM radio station is now 101.3 The River CKKN and the AM station is now 99.3 The Drive, an FM station.)
At that time in that market, on the AM radio side, there was CKPG, CJCI (now an FM station owned by Vista Broadcast) was the number two station and CBC was third in the market.
Now in that entire city, AM is dead. There’s not one single station. When you get in your car and hit “seek” on AM, it’ll just roll through everything, there’s nothing there anymore.
And (on FM) there’s CBC and Hits 101 does a talk show but it’s basically news, weather and traffic and that’s it.
So, they’ve lost a lot of diversity in local news as a consequence, but the silver lining in all that is the same talk show guy who was on CKPG, a guy named Ben Meisner, started opinion250.com and it’s a blossoming web site and he reaches not only Prince George but he also covers Terrace and to Prince Rupert and Tumbler Ridge in the northeast.
GOB: But does he make money at it?
JM: He makes a lot of money at it. As I understand, he does very well – and it’s very local. So, it’s kind of going back to the roots, right.
GOB: Right. And I think more like that will spring up. It’s not a good thing is CH goes away. I live in Hamilton and would prefer it remain in some form. But if it goes, I don’t think it’s the end of the world, either. Other things, other companies, other forms, will rise up in its wake because people do still want local news.
JM: That’s right. And in other regions of the country, local news does very well. In Vancouver, where I’m from, Global Television is a hit. It’s the best station, they have massive market share over the number two in the region.
GOB: Canwest did say that in the hearing, that Vancouver is one of their local news operations that is profitable.
JM: And to be fair, CBC Radio in Vancouver just outpaced CKNW in the ratings for the first time in a generation… largely because they have changed the way they provide news. Rick Cluff, their morning guy, is great and they do provide good local news.
So, it is possible that the public broadcaster can provide very good local news, contrary to what some people out there say. They, without commercial pressures, can produce some great content… some of the best news in the country – and the emergence of new media is providing more choices and opportunities as well.
As part of the younger generation, we’re not really that concerned about the longer period. The transition period now though, is tough.
GOB: And we’re in it, that’s for sure. It’s going to take a while longer to get there. But now let’s take, for example, the digital television transition. We’re way behind on that. Is there any thought to try and delay the August 31, 2011 deadline or to take the money you’ll be getting in auctioning off that (700 MHz) spectrum and helping local broadcasters build their transmitters out?
JM: It’s very difficult to make judgements on that right now, just by basic fact that this very much has to be done in simpatico with what the United States is doing.
GOB: Well, they’re done. Their final transition date is June 12 and there are about 500 stations who have shut off their analog transmitters right now.
JM: Well, over 90% of Canadians can take the signals in digital. There’s a gap there that’s not without concern.
GOB: Sure, for those (90% of) Canadians, their cable or satellite company will take care of them and convert those signals for them.
JM: There’s an opportunity for the market to take care of it, that doesn’t necessarily require any kind of government action, for one.
Number two is I know people and I bet you do too, like University students. I think about my sister and her husband who are both 35 and have two daughters… they don’t have cable. They don’t need it. They watch YouTube, they rent DVDs, they get shows how they want them, they podcast stuff, they watch what they want digitally when they want to.
So, that gap of folks who are not going to be part of the transition to digital (TV) – some of them are choosing that, and that’s fine, too.
For some people, with the transition, no doubt there’ll be some shock but I think overall, we have to stop looking at the transition as a glass half-empty. It is half full and the part that’s full is very impressive and it means more choice and more opportunity and empowering consumers.
GOB: Some of the U.S. broadcasters are using their digital transmission to multicast, taking their one channel and making it into four, for example.
JM: And as a sign of where we’re going and the opportunities that exist is to look at specialty channels. People like choice. And they’re prepared to pay for it. And, people watch shows, they don’t watch networks. They want their shows and are more than prepared to have as much choice as possible.
GOB: Do you envision having to follow the U.S. lead to provide coupons for converter boxes to people who can’t necessarily afford the transition?
JM: I think the coupon program in the United States has been roundly criticized and rightly so and we won’t be following that example. We’ve made this clear that this is not going to be something that our government will be paying for.
GOB: Is there any thought to trying to fill those gaps some other way?
JM: Two years is a very long time. It is. Two years ago, people didn’t have the iPhone in this country.
In politics you try to not rule anything absolutely out or absolutely in, but I can tell you that given the gap, I don’t foresee – and generally speaking – that it’s a relatively narrow gap compared to the United States’…
GOB: But let’s say there are still going to be 50,000, 80,000, 100,000 Canadians – just to use Bell Canada’s FreeSat numbers who don’t have or can’t get or can’t afford the digital transition, so what happens with those folks. Are they just cut off?
JM: Two years is a very long time. I don’t mean that as a roadblock answer, but we’ll see. I think you’ll find there are a lot of people who choose not to have cable because they get their information through new media.
Go through the University of Ottawa 15 years ago and compare the number of people then who had cable to now and I bet you it’s almost nil now.
GOB: But if you drive Highway 101 up to Timmins, say, where there’s no cable or broadband and there’s just over the air TV where the broadcasters might be shutting down their transmitters, people there might be the ones caught in the gaps.
JM: It’s a concern, but I’d just say that two years is a long time and we’ll see.
GOB: Two years is a long time but CTV and Canwest have asked for some immediate action on two other issues: Part II fees and prescription drug advertising. So I’m wondering if the government is, as has been rumoured, contemplating walking away from the Part II fee court fight, which would free up many millions of dollars for the broadcasters, should you choose to give the money back. Or, if you just abandoned the case, it would free up the millions they’ve been accruing in case they have to pay them.
JM: Well, Part II is before the courts, so it’s really hard for me to comment on that. I know of their demands. I know what it would mean for business and what their concerns are, but I can’t comment.
GOB: So no talk about it at caucus about that, to say, “okay, let’s just walk away from this?”
JM: You can understand my position on this. Any comment would not be prudent.
GOB: And drug ads?
JM: We don’t have any plans to change the current regime.
