TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE

             THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND

               TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

             TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT

              LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION

           ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES

                      SUBJECT / SUJET:

Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of

telecommunications and broadcasting services to

persons with disabilities /

Questions en suspens concernant l'accessibilité des

services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion pour

les personnes handicapées

HELD AT:                              TENUE À:

Conference Centre                     Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room                        Salle Outaouais

140 Promenade du Portage              140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec                      Gatineau (Québec)

November 17, 2008                     Le 17 novembre 2008

Transcripts

In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages

Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be

bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members

and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of

Contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded

verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in

either of the official languages, depending on the language

spoken by the participant at the public hearing.

Transcription

Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues

officielles, les procès‑verbaux pour le Conseil seront

bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des

membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience

publique ainsi que la table des matières.

Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu

textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée

et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues

officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le

participant à l'audience publique.

               Canadian Radio‑television and

               Telecommunications Commission

            Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des

               télécommunications canadiennes

                 Transcript / Transcription

Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of

telecommunications and broadcasting services to

persons with disabilities /

Questions en suspens concernant l'accessibilité des

services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion pour

les personnes handicapées

BEFORE / DEVANT:

Leonard Katz                      Chairperson / Président

Elizabeth Duncan                  Commissioner / Conseillère

Timothy Denton                    Commissioner / Conseiller

Suzanne Lamarre                   Commissioner / Conseillère

Candice Molnar                    Commissioner / Conseillère

Stephen Simpson                   Commissioner / Conseiller

ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:

Sylvie Bouffard                   Secretary / Secretaire

Kathleen Taylor                   Hearing Manager /

                                  Gérante de l'audience

Martine Vallée                    Director, Social Policy /

                                  Directrice, Politiques

Sheila Perron                     Hearing Officer /

                                  Agente d'audiences

Lori Pope                         Legal Counsel /

Véronique Lehoux                  Conseillères juridiques

HELD AT:                          TENUE À:

Conference Centre                 Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room                    Salle Outaouais

140 Promenade du Portage          140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec                  Gatineau (Québec)

November 17, 2008                 Le 17 novembre 2008

- iv -

           TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                 PAGE / PARA

PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:

Canadian National Institute for the Blind           8 /   42

Centre québécois de la déficience auditive         57 /  331

Rothschild & Co. and Stubbs Solutions             102 /  537

Québecor Media inc. au nom de                     142 /  803

  Vidéotron ltée et de Groupe TVA inc.

Canadian Association of Broadcasters              217 / 1206

Gatineau, Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ Upon commencing on Monday, November 17, 2008

    at 0932 / L'audience débute le lundi 17 novembre

    2008 à 0932

1                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this public hearing.

2                My name is Leonard Katz and I am the Vice‑Chairman of Telecommunications for the CRTC.  I will be presiding over this hearing.

3                Joining me on the panel are my colleagues:  starting from a far left, Stephen Simpson, Regional Commissioner for British Columbia and the Yukon; Candice Molnar, Regional Commissioner for Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and myself.  Starting from my far right, Elizabeth Duncan, Commissioner for the Atlantic Region; Timothy Denton, National Commissioner; and Suzanne Lamarre, Regional Commissioner for Québec.

4                The Commission team assisting us is seated at the tables to my left.  The team includes: Kathleen Taylor, Hearing Manager and Manager, Accessibility; Martine Vallée, Director, Social Policy; Lori Pope and Véronique Lehoux, legal counsel; and Sylvie Bouffard, Hearing Secretary.

5                Please speak with Ms Bouffard if you have any questions with regard to hearing procedures.

6                C'est la première fois que le Conseil tient une instance d'envergure sur l'accessibilité des personnes handicapées aux services de communication.  Il s'agit également d'une de nos premières instances en mode de convergence.  Nous allons évaluer, à la fois, l'accessibilité des services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion, y compris ceux qui sont fournis dans l'Internet et par l'entremise d'appareils mobiles.

7                Just to repeat, this is the first time that the Commission has held a comprehensive proceeding on the accessibility of communication services to persons with disabilities.  It is also one of our first converse proceedings as we will be considering the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services, including those provided over the Internet and through mobile devices.

8                Canada's Telecommunications Policy objectives include facilitating the development of a system of safeguards, enriches and strengthens the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions.  Another objective is to respond to the economic and social requirements of those who use telecommunications services.

9                On the broadcasting side, the policy objectives include making sure that the Canadian broadcasting system not only serves the needs and interests of Canadians, but also reflects their circumstances and aspirations.

10               Another objective is that programming accessible by persons with disabilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available.

11               In this regard, the CRTC has issued a number of decisions to support these objectives over the past several years.  For instance, telecommunications service providers are required to offer message relay services and free local directory assistance to persons with disabilities.  They are also required to provide, upon request, their billing statement and certain inserts in alternative formats.

12               In 2007 we established a new policy requiring French and English language television broadcasters to caption all their programs during the broadcast day.  This policy will be implemented at the upcoming licence renewals in 2009.

13               We also, last year I believe it was, licensed a TAC accessibility channel which should be going on air shortly.

14               In addition, the Commission has asked the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to develop universal standards and to propose technical solutions to improve the quality of captioning.

15               The CAB will file its report by November 30th and parties will have an opportunity to comment on them before January 12th as part of this proceeding.

16               Plus tôt cette année, nous avons approuvé le Code sur la représentation équitable.  Le Code établit des normes claires en ce qui concerne la représentation des personnes handicapées, et son respect est une condition de licence pour tous les radiodiffuseurs.

17               At this hearing, the Panel will focus on the following areas:  telecommunications relay services, captioning, described video, customer service and support and emergency services.

18               The Panel will make an announcement on Thursday regarding whether the hearing will be extended into the week of November 24th.

19               Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to note that the CRTC is working to update its website in order to meet the government's Common Look and Feel 2.0 requirements by December 31st of this year.  As of that date our website will be compliant with the accessibility guidelines developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

20               Official documents that contain images currently published by the CRTC, including alternate text, and are available in alternate format upon request.

21               I would now invite the Hearing Secretary, Sylvie Bouffard, to explain the procedures we will be following.

22               Madam Secretary...?

23               THE SECRETARY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Bonjour à tous.

24               My name is Sylvie Bouffard and I will be the Hearing Secretary for the duration of the consultation.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to come and see me during breaks and lunches.

25               Before beginning, I would like to go over a few housekeeping matters to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing.

26               Please note that the Commission Members may ask questions in either English or French.  You can obtain an interpretation receiver from the Commissionaire at the entrance.

27               Le service d'interprétation simultanée est disponible durant cette audience.  Vous pouvez vous procurer un récepteur auprès du commissionnaire à l'entrée.  L'interprétation anglaise se trouve au canal 7, et l'interprétation française au canal 8.

28               English interpretation is available on Channel 7 and French on Channel 8.

29               When you are in the hearing room we would ask that you completely turn off your cell phones and blackberries as they are an unwelcome distraction and as they will cause interference on the internal communication system used by our translators and interpreters.  Please note that if you leave them on vibration mode, they will still cause interference.

30               We would appreciate your cooperation in this regard throughout the hearing.

31               Starting tomorrow, we will begin each morning at 9:00 a.m.  We will take a 1‑1/2 hour lunch break as well as a midmorning and midafternoon break.  We will let you know of any schedule changes as they may occur.

32               We invite participants to monitor the progress of the hearing in order to be ready to make their presentation.

33               The Papineau Room, which is located outside this room and to your right, will serve as the examination room where you can examine the documents that have been placed on the public record for this proceeding.  The examination room is open to the public and parties throughout the duration of the hearing.

34               The telephone number of the examination room is 819‑953‑3168.

35               There is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the court reporter sitting at the table on my right.  If you have any questions on how to obtain all or part of this transcript, please approach the court reporter during a break.  Please note that the full transcript will be made available on the Commission's website shortly after the conclusion of the hearing.

36               Please note that ASL and LSQ sign language interpretation services will be made available throughout the hearing if needed.  Please advise the Hearing Secretary if you require such services.

37               Furthermore, French and English captioning of the hearing is available on the screens to my left, as well as on the CRTC's Web home page.  If you require assistance during the consultation, our staff members in and outside the hearing room or in the public examination room will be pleased to help you.

38               Nous avons à votre disposition des membres du personnel du Conseil qui se feront un plaisir de vous assister tout au long du processus.  Ces personnes se retrouvent à la salle d'examen, ainsi qu'à l'intérieur et l'extérieur de la salle d'audience.

39               We will now proceed with the presentations in the order of appearance set out.  Each participant will have 15 minutes for their presentation, followed by questions by the hearing Panel.

40               Now, Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with our first presentation.

41               Appearing for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is Cathy Moore.  Please introduce your colleague.  You then have 15 minutes for your presentation.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

42               MS MOORE:  Thank you, Sylvie.  Thank you, Commissioners and Mr. Katz, for this opportunity to speak today on what I hope when we look back on it will be called a historic hearing.

43               I will introduce my colleague, Bernard Nunan, who is here to take notes and to assist me when I lose something, which will be inevitable in my pile of papers.

44               I work for CNIB, which is a large organization.  My role is Director of Consumer and Government Relations.  I would like to be clear that we are one of three groups speaking to you this week on behalf of the persons with vision loss.

45               CNIB will do a good job, but my two counter organizations, the Alliance for the Equality of Blind Canadians and the Canadian Council of the Blind, will also do a good job.  None of us have all the answers, but collectively I trust we will do a good job.

46               I will not return to your summary, which was excellent, Mr. Katz, of what has led us to where we are today in terms of decisions that have been made by the CRTC, but I would like to just draw some attention to one that was a decision that was made, 2006‑15, which was not directly relating to persons with disabilities but was a decision around the details for a framework of forbearance.

47               If you would indulge me for a moment, I will just read a quote from that decision which said:  The Commission can decide to retain powers and duties that are strictly necessary to protect vulnerable and uncontested customers.

48               What I would like to talk about for the next portion is the difference between disability groups as a vulnerable population and this regulatory process and context that all of you, yourselves, the Commissioners and industry works in on a day‑to‑day basis.

49               You are regulators and because of that you are sitting where you are because of your background in law or your background in the industry, your background in managerial or entrepreneurial areas.  You are pragmatic people.  You are looking for details.  You are looking for information.  You are looking for facts and you are tasked with making explicit directions to both industry and to your policy counterparts as to what to do in specific areas.

50               You have laid out very specifically what you would like to talk about today and I will, I assure you, get to that.

51               The disability community is a vulnerable population, not because of what may seem to be the natural, the inability to access certain telecommunications or broadcasting devices, we are vulnerable because of our lack of capacity to be experts on the huge current and future trends and technicalities around telecommunications and broadcasting.

52               We are ignorant of that because we are the general population.  Anyone going into Future Shop, if you asked any customer that walked in the door, would have equally lack of information on the technicalities that makes their flashcard work or why they need 16 versus 30 GB of memory.  They may go for the 30 because is sounds bigger but chances are they will never use it.

53               The general population, of which the disability community rests, are not experts in this area.

54               CNIB has 1100 employees.  We have an $82 million annual budget and I can assure you we do not have one regulatory lawyer on staff.  We do not have an expert in telecommunications.

55               Why am I saying this?  I don't need your sympathy.  I need your understanding of why we are in a situation where quite often from the regulatory side you are left wondering what on earth do they want, and from our side we are left very frustrated because we don't seem to be able to find bridges to move forward.

56               So I would like to present my presentation today with some suggestions of bridges and ways in which we can move forward, ways in which the capacity of the disability community might be enhanced in order to have a more informed and productive conversation.

57               I would in no way want to suggest that the people coming after me are not informed or will not provide excellent information, but we, as a group, are very, very short on deep expertise in this area.  Certainly I am one of the persons that is not an expert.

58               However, to respect your process I would like to get to the subjects that you asked us to discuss today, but I will tell you in the context of what we need but not how to get there.  I cannot offer you costs that would be involved in what I'm recommending.  I can't talk to you about timeframe and I cannot talk to you about the technical requirements to get there for the reasons I've just stated.

59               However, I would like to say that in the area of described video, CNIB would recommend that as soon as possible we have 100 per cent described video available on prime time television.

60               The accessibility channel is an excellent interim step, but a special channel in the long term is not a solution to access to broadcasting, both news and entertainment.

61               In the area of emergency access, the audio rendering of any emergency messaging that is coming through a broadcasting system is what we recommend and I believe we are close to having that.

62               On the telecommunications side emergency access is about calling in an emergency as much as receiving information about an emergency.  Again we would recommend free 911 service for all persons with disabilities, because for many persons with disabilities their incomes are low and it becomes a problem to have to pay an extra charge on top of your regular service in cellular area.

63               We would also like to see the video relay service as soon as possible.  The process is in place.  We know the expertise exists on how to do it and we believe we are down the road there and we will support our colleagues in the deaf community who would suggest that we need to just move ahead and have it happen.

64               Customer service, we recommend that all customer service websites be accessible to a W3C Consortium requirements, which is the same as the Common Look and Feel requirements of the Government of Canada.  So it is very clearly established.

65               But we would also like to recommend that information for customers, including manuals on how to use your new cell phone, are available in alternate format.  This again would not be unprecedented.  Your own Commission in 1996, in your Decision 626, recommended to all telecommunications companies that they needed to provide bills, information on customer packages, et cetera, in alternate format.  So that would simply be expanding that previous decision in 1996.

66               Now, the problem is that these are specific answers which you require and are important but do not address the larger systemic issues that are ubiquitous and will continue to be ubiquitous within the issue around accessibility to disability.

67               I will give you just one quick example.  My partner is going to hit me when I get close to my 15 minutes.

68               This is a very ordinary cell phone ‑‑ I will not turn it on; I know it is going to interfere with things.  But because of advances in technology I am able to use this ordinary phone, no special bells or whistles, accessibility bells and whistles that allow me, with the use of VoIP and interactive voice messaging to access my e‑mail, calendar, voice mail, et cetera; not only to access it, hear it, but reply.

69               That's through a process, a system that we have a Microsoft version of it.  There are others that exist.  This has advanced my capability to not ‑‑ because when I use a computer I need large print.  This phone allows me to do my e‑mail and resulting in my partner beside me getting a lot more work than he would have gotten otherwise, so I'm not sure he's happy with it.

70               However, if I was hearing impaired I couldn't use it, because what is missing from it is the ability to turn up the volume in a way that would be useful to a hearing impaired.

71               Why?  Because there are bandwidth issues here.

72               Now, there may be other phones that have it, but it's not widely available so the hearing impaired, hard of hearing would have difficulty with this.

73               This is one example and there is a myriad of examples, and that's what the issue becomes.  It's like herding cats.  You catch one, three more are gone if you do not start thinking, all of us ‑‑ all of us in this room ‑‑ both the disability community, industry and Commissioners, in the broader systemic solutions to accessibility issues:  what is coming down the pike; how is convergence of information; what kind of bandwidth are we going to need in the future; where is required.

74               All of that needs to be addressed.

75               How to do it?  Two suggestions.

76               One is that within the regulatory framework of the CRTC an institute is formed that deals with issues around accessibility.  This again is not unprecedented.  We have an institute through Georgia Tech that has been in place for a long time that is a private/public partnership that has brought us, the W3C, conventions on how to make our websites accessible through the meeting of academics, industry folks and the disability community.

77               Why within the CRTC and why make it a regulatory system?  Because industry cannot be expected to voluntarily go forward with accessibility solutions now, because in the short term there is a cost attached and in a highly competitive climate you cannot expect one company to incur those costs if the rest of the companies aren't having to do the same thing.

78               So if it is regulated in the sense of not a punitive draconian regulation, but a regulation that requires a standardized approach based on solutions that have been researched and costed so that action plans with measurable outcomes can be put in place, that all of that needs to be within a neutral context that the CRTC has the capability to deliver.

79               It cannot be voluntary for the reasons I've stated.  It renders in the short term a competitive disadvantage.

80               In the long term it renders innovation and it renders new solutions.

81               I can assure you blackberry students start out by following the status quo.  I can also tell you that synthetic speech was first developed not in the broader industry context, but within research laboratories looking at solutions for blind people needing to access text using speech.

82               Industry Canada in the '80s, our Industry Canada, put seed money into that type of research that resulted in Stephen Hawking being able to hear his text.

83               So how do you fund this?  My last point.

84               How does the CRTC somehow, in an era of fiscal restraint, how do you come up with the money to actually fund this?  How much would it cost?

85               I'm not sure, but it shouldn't be ‑‑ it won't be prohibitive.  But you can fund it through current legislation that you have in the Telecommunications Act that allows the Commission ‑‑ it's section 46.5 in the Telecommunications Act that allows you to set up a mechanism called the National Contribution Fund.

86               You have one already that applies to the provision of long distance.  Clearly because we were talking about broadcasting and telecommunications, the National Contribution Fund for this type of endeavour would need to be expanded.  Perhaps the legislation would need to be expanded.  I'm not sure if the Broadcasting Act has the same type of mechanism to allow you.

87               If you could just bear with me for one more minute while I read to you what your own Act, the Telecommunications Act says, that:

"The Commission may require any telecommunications service provider to contribute, subject to any conditions that the Commission may set, to a fund to support continuing access by Canadians to basic telecommunications services."

88               That is the mechanism to fund it.  What is required is an institute of public and private and disability community members able to, in a neutral situation, arrive at solutions.

89               Now, if we do that, if we can go forward with this type of process, then this truly will be a historic occasion.  And what will also occur is ‑‑ oh, you must be excited; I'm so pleased to see that ‑‑

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

90               THE CHAIRPERSON:  I'm sorry.

91               MS MOORE:  That's not a problem.  It's usually me that knocks something over waving my arms.

92               What will happen, I can assure you, is that people will look back on this as an historic hearing that led Canada into part of the leadership that is already under way in the U.S. and in Australia.  It will allow us to conform ‑‑ excuse me, I'm not crying, I'm just running out of air.

93               It will allow us to conform with current legislation, particularly in Ontario that is coming out, the AODA.  It will allow us to be global partners with the U.S. ADA that has been in place.  It will allow our carriers, et cetera, to be more competitive in that area.

94               But more importantly, or perhaps as importantly, it will allow persons with disabilities to quit being a vulnerable population in the context of access to telecommunications and broadcasting and just resume where we always should have been, as just an ordinary segment of the customer population.

95               Again, thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion.

96               THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much for your frank views.

97               We are going to start the questioning with Commissioner Molnar.

98               Commissioner...?

99               COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

100              Welcome, Ms Moore and Mr. Nunan.

101              Can I refer my questions to you, Ms Moore?

102              MS MOORE:  Yes.

103              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Yes, okay.

104              Thank you for your comments.  I would like to begin ‑‑ I have questions here for you related to described video, to telecommunications terminal equipment and to issues related to customer support.

105              I'm going to start, if it's okay with you, with the questions related to described video.

106              MS MOORE:  Yes.

107              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Okay.

108              What I would like to do ‑‑ and I heard you say today that you believed 100 per cent of  video should be described and that should be a goal going forward.

109              I will pursue speaking of increasing described video in a moment, but what I would like to get first is your perspective regarding the accessibility of the programming that is described within the system today.

110              Today, as I'm sure you well know, there is approximately 21 hours described by the over the air broadcasters, and if you add in the specialty there is approximately 54 hours each week that is described.

111              On the record of this proceeding there is a number of indications that there are problems with consumers, persons who are blind or visually impaired, being able to access that information, whether it be related to issues regarding promotion, in knowing that in fact the programming is available, or issues related to set‑top boxes and remotes and electronic program guides.

112              There appears to be a number of issues today that would restrict persons' benefits of the programming that is there today and I wondered if you could comment on that?

113              MS MOORE:  I think you have summed it up nicely.  One of the issues around accessibility is the knowing that it's there and knowing how it works.

114              So what is available, you are quite right, there are many people who are not aware of that and they are not aware of what to do about it.

115              So we can say, well, you can go to a SAP channel, you can press this, you can press that, but if you are ‑‑ particularly for a lot of low vision persons, our seniors ‑‑ and not to be ages because there are some who are very techno‑savvy, but generally this current generation of 70‑plus are not techno‑savvy and are not comfortable necessarily even with a remote, plus the added problem of being able to actually see it.  So there is a difficulty.

116              All accessibility features, really as a given, should have some variation of a training component attached to them and described video is no different.  It's how do you do it?  How do you get to it?  So that's the first thing.

117              The second comment is that 54 hours is simply not enough.

118              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

119              Before we move on to the number of hours, if I could ask you, who do you believe is responsible for addressing the issues of awareness in training?

120              You mentioned there should be a training component.  Who would you see responsible for ensuring that consumers that have ‑‑ you know, that persons who are blind or have visual impairments are able to understand how to access the programming?

121              MS MOORE:  Well, I think it could be a partnership.  I think the primary responsibility is with the broadcaster, the service provider, so that the availability exists.  Certainly, the disability organizations can also be involved, but it cannot be a question of the disability organizations being responsible for.

122              They certainly are a partner in the dissemination of the information, but the primary role would be the broadcaster.

123              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

124              Moving on to the issue of increasing the number of hours of described video ‑‑ and I did hear your position that it should be 100 percent ‑‑ if we were to look at a measured increase in described video ‑‑ for example, one of the proposals put forward by the RAAQ was to increase the number of hours, beginning at 14 hours and moving to 28 hours per week, just as an example of a measured increase in described video.

125              If that were to occur, I would like your opinion as it regards who that should apply to.

126              Do you believe that it should apply equally to all broadcasters ‑‑ over‑the‑air, pay, specialty?

127              Would there be any priorities, as you see it, as to where the increases should lie within the system?

128              MS MOORE:  First of all, any increase ‑‑ incremental increase, I think, is a very logical approach to achieving the 100 percent.  So I would agree with that.  A planned incremental increase that is aiming toward 100 percent, I would be very comfortable with that, and I think that our organization would be.

129              Over how many years, I am not sure.  That would need to be determined.  So to answer that question ‑‑

130              Now, I quite understand the difficulty ‑‑ the myriad of different specialty channels that are there, unregulated some of them, other than the fact that they exist and are available in Canada, but very difficult to get to the crux of the matter.

131              I think what needs to be done is, again, in consultation with the disability community ‑‑ the question could be asked:  What could you live with in the next year, or two years.

132              The difficulty for me here is, I can't know what the majority of persons with vision loss would say.  So I am hesitant to say:  I think it should be news, because I like news.

133              I think it should be how my stock market is doing, because that is one that is a classic example of undescribed, and very frustrating when you hear the music, when everybody else is finding out how far the Dow has gone down today.

134              That is an example of where it is needed.

135              I can't answer your question, and that is why I will go back to my discussion around an institute, and the institute ‑‑ one of its roles would be the determining of what is doable, what is "needable", and what is the priority.

136              Some of that can be done through survey work, and some of it also needs to be done in cooperation with the broadcasters.

137              What is it going to cost?  It is very difficult for anyone to sign onto something if they don't know what it's going to cost and what it's going to entail in terms of their own resources.

138              We have some of that information, but it's in various places, and in various countries, so it needs to be brought together.

139              That is a long answer to your question, so I apologize for that.

140              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  No, thank you for that.  I just want to ensure that I understand, and I do want to ask you a couple of questions regarding your proposed institute and consultations later on.

141              You would see this proceeding leading to broad policy objectives, and then details regarding the amount of increase, or where those increases would occur, being follow‑ups that are agreed to between stakeholders and the industry?

142              MS MOORE:  Yes.

143              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Okay.  Thank you.

144              I am going to continue with this line of questioning, and I do understand ‑‑ you just told me that you would like to see a number of these issues in follow‑up, but some of them may, in fact, be determined here, so ‑‑

145              MS MOORE:  Good.

146              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  As a matter of principle, I do hear that there is a broader populace that has to be considered, and you are not speaking for everyone here.

147              If we continue, one of the other questions we had related to described video in the English versus the French market.

148              Would you see any reason for there to be distinctions between those two?

149              MS MOORE:  No.

150              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Okay.  Thank you.

151              I would also like to touch briefly on the issue of genre.  Today described video is limited to the genres of drama, documentaries and children's programming.  Do you see for yourself, or for the population that you represent, that there would be other genres that are well adapted to described video, or lend themselves well to described video?

152              MS MOORE:  Certainly news.  I think that news is essential ‑‑ and given the 24‑hour news period, I realize what I am saying ‑‑ and sports.

153              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  You touched on news and financial information, the fact that you hear music as the information scrolls past on the screen.  There is a distinction today within the regulatory framework between described video and audio description.

154              You are aware of audio description, its intent?

155              MS MOORE:  Yes.

156              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Do you see that the distinction between audio description and described video remains relevant?

157              MS MOORE:  If audio description in the context that it is more ‑‑ it is a simpler process, that it applies to, shall we say, breaking news or time‑sensitive information, then audio description definitely has a place, and an important place.

158              Described video is typically done with something that is already complete, be it a drama, a documentary or a children's program.

159              Obviously, audio description is what is needed with something that is real‑time.

160              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Would you consider that some of the issues ‑‑ for example, you suggested some of the financial information scrolling past on the screen ‑‑

161              MS MOORE:  Yes.

162              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Would you consider that some of those issues could be addressed simply by improved audio description?

163              MS MOORE:  Yes.  Really, the end goal, from a person‑with‑vision‑loss point of view, is simply to hear the information.  It is what will get the results.  That's the issue.

164              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

165              Just one last issue related to described video.  You mentioned The Accessibility Channel, and I think you spoke of it as a transitional measure.

166              MS MOORE:  Yes.

167              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  I wondered if you could maybe expand on that and tell us what your view is of the role of TAC as it relates to both expanding the amount of described video, as well as expanding for, potentially, the awareness of the product and information, and so on, for the community.

168              MS MOORE:  The Accessibility Channel ‑‑ I call it an interim step, because we are happy with anything that increases the percentage of available described video, and audio description, if that is also the case there.

169              But what happens when you put something in a special place is, you tend to not increase awareness outside of the group that is actually accessing it.

170              Our fear always is that, in a climate where there are never enough resources or enough dollars, we don't want The Accessibility Channel to be the solution, and we are done, and we don't need to do anything else because accessible described video is provided in this specific place.

171              It doesn't cover the myriad of other broadcasting options that are available to the seeing public.

172              What is good about it is that it's a start.  It's an improvement, and it also does garner expertise ‑‑ Canadian expertise, in order to make it happen.

173              But if it stops there, then it is not ‑‑

174              I'm sorry.  My point is, it can't stop there.

175              MR. NUNAN:  If I could pick up on what Cathy is saying, even the people running The Accessibility Channel agree that it's just a piece of the puzzle.  Bob Trimbee says that in a 500‑channel universe, The Accessibility Channel would like to see a common channel location across the country.

176              He did research, and he found that, for instance, 888 is not used by anyone across the country.

177              So, although the CRTC prefers not to regulate stations, The Accessibility Channel isn't a commercial enterprise.  So what he is saying is, just look at that as a possible station.

178              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Okay.  Thank you.

179              I would like to move on to issues related to telecommunications, and particularly issues related to terminal equipment and wireless handsets.

180              You spoke about it a bit today, and I know that in your comments, which you filed on July 24th, you also spoke about the issues related to the deregulation of terminal equipment.

181              In those comments you stated that ‑‑ and I am going to find it here ‑‑ "general deregulation of terminal equipment has lessened service."

182              I wonder if you could expand on that, and specifically ‑‑ and I am asking now for some specifics ‑‑ if you could tell us specifically what services you are referring to where service has, in fact, been lessened with the deregulation of terminal equipment ‑‑

183              I'm sorry, Ms Moore, I am just going to continue.  It is kind of a long question.

184              MS MOORE:  All right.

185              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  ‑‑ as well as what services you are speaking of.

186              If you could, I would like you to explain to me why those services are not accessible.  What is the barrier, and what is the impact of that barrier?

187              It is really a three‑part question:  what services have been lessened due to deregulation, why are those services not accessible, and what is the resulting impact or barrier that it has caused?

188              MS MOORE:  Thank you.

189              It is not that services have been lessened.  That is not the way to look at it.  Services have simply exploded, without the context of there being an accessibility requirement for them.

190              All of you, as Commissioners, are well aware of the absolute explosion of wireless, and the services that are now available that, in 1994, were not even ‑‑ they were coming, but they were not dreamed of in the way that we take for granted today.

191              So it's not that the services of 1994 have somehow been lessened, it is the ballooning of other services that have come to be considered normal, ubiquitous, and yet are not accessible with vision loss.

192              I will give you examples.  There are things like text messaging.  Receiving text messaging that is not audio is a good example.

193              Or, being able to read your e‑mail on your phone and respond.  Again, there are a couple of phones and a couple of services, but they are more expensive.  They are considerably less affordable than a regular wireless package.

194              Video access by phone, again, is not accessible.

195              I am speaking, of course, only for vision loss.  If we go into hearing loss, et cetera, which I will let my colleagues talk about, then it becomes even more of a problem.

196              For people with dexterity issues, mobility issues, the ability ‑‑ the necessity to be able to use a keypad renders many wireless services simply unusable, because of the inability to be able to do it.  A voice‑activated system would allow that to happen, but right now that is, again, not widely available.

197              So the impact has been that, while the convergence of telephone, television, e‑mail and voice mail has occurred and is marvellous in these small, hand‑held devices, it is eliminating ‑‑ progressively, fewer and fewer people with vision loss are able to use those new tools.

198              Why is that an impact?  There are several reasons.

199              One is employment‑wise ‑‑ job‑wise. It is expected that when you travel you are accessing your e‑mail.  It's a necessity.  Things happen while you are away from the office.  You want to be on top of them, right?

200              That is expected.  That is not possible, so it limits a person's productivity.

201              The other impact is the unaffordability, or the burden of affordability in order to access the one or two plans that may allow you some, but often not all of the voice access for people with vision loss.

202              So it's the ballooning of the services, the inaccessibility because of keypads, Touch‑Tones, pens, et cetera, and then the impact productivity‑wise, and affordability.

203              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

204              You spoke of affordability as well as accessibility to services, and I would like to stay focused for a few minutes on the issue of accessibility.

205              To what extent are there devices ‑‑ ancillary devices or components available that can be used to make these services accessible?

206              Are you aware of devices, whether available here in Canada or otherwise, that can help to make these devices accessible?

207              MS MOORE:  I am aware of some of them, and certainly my job in Consumer Relations means that I need to be aware of some of them.

208              Prior to this I worked in Employment Accommodation.

209              But even with my access, my exposure, et cetera, my knowledge is not extensive, and it's not comprehensive, which brings me to the need, again, for some coordinating body to have this information available.

210              I know that there are voice‑activated phones available, because some of my colleagues use them, through certain carriers.  But then the carrier dropped part of that serving, so now we need to go to a different carrier.

211              This is almost word‑of‑mouth information that ends up being circulated in the disability community.

212              So, yes, the devices exist, and every day we might find out about a new one, but the issue is that we are being ‑‑ we in the disability community, which is part of our vulnerability that I spoke to earlier, are being reactive rather than proactive.

213              Why don't we do a better job of knowing ourselves?  Because, again, we are the general population, we are not experts, and the availability of the information is not widespread.  There is no use for a carrier to advertise these additional devices, because they are much more expensive, they are not competitive.

214              So the mainstream population would not be interested in the $300 Victor Stream that allows me to transfer audio books to my computer, but it exists.  I know about it, but it's $300.

215              You can buy the same capacity MP3 player for $50, so the mainstream is not going to want one.

216              It's a vicious circle of lack of information, because there is no competitive reason to disseminate the information, and the technical knowledge on our end.  That's a gap.

217              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

218              I would like to follow up a little bit on the issue of lack of information, from two perspectives.

219              First of all, I went on your website yesterday and looked at your catalogue, and I saw that you have a limited number of telecommunications products and services on your website, and I wondered what ‑‑

220              I appreciate what you say, that the general population can't know all that is available, and they are not experts, and you need somewhere to shop, just as I do when I want something new.  You shop and find it, and you rely on the information provided to you by the service providers, or Best Buy, or whoever it might be.

221              I noted that you do have a catalogue, and I wondered, not as the general population, but as an organization established to support your population ‑‑ persons with visual disabilities ‑‑ would you see a role for organizations such as yours in accumulating and disseminating this information?

222              MS MOORE:  Yes, and we do fulfil the role in the context of assistive technology that already exists, generally aimed at allowing access to print through speech or through Braille.

223              Computer equipment we are a little bit knowledgeable about, but if you noticed, if you went through the catalogue, other than the Victor Stream, there aren't hand‑held devices there.  There is no GPS combined with a Pathfinder, combined with a Braille and Speak in our catalogue.

224              We are two, three, four years behind the curve in our own organization with that type of information, and we will never be able to, alone, keep abreast of the developments, because, as we all know, the developments are dizzying in their speed.

225              Again, product‑wise is one area where more information needs to be amassed, and a partnership between ourselves and industry would be very useful ‑‑ and the Commission ‑‑ but we will never be anything but reactive if we do not go back to the beginning of the design of these products, or, in many cases in Canada, because we are not designing but in fact purchasing, go to procurement policies that don't talk about the accessibility features already being built in.

226              Really, the task would then become the dissemination of the information and how to use it, rather than an add‑on or a retrofit to something that is already there.

227              Getting ahead of the curve will only be possible at the early design stage or procurement stage.

228              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.  I understand that.

229              You speak of design and you speak of procurement, and we, as a regulatory body, don't regulate the manufactures ‑‑

230              MS MOORE:  Yes.

231              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  ‑‑ those who create the products, so there is some difficulty in us addressing the issue of the design or dissemination of information related to products.

232              And it's not a national market, of course, it's an international market, very much so.

233              MS MOORE:  Right.

234              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  But we do regulate the service providers, and they offer a limited number of products and services that are designed specifically to address accessibility needs.

235              I wondered if there were any improvements that you view could be made in the information they make available, so that those products and services could be used to their maximum functionality, or maximum benefit.

236              MS MOORE:  I think that the improvement could be around information in an alternate format.  That would certainly be useful.  And some mechanism of alerts or bulletins to what is new ‑‑ what is coming down the pike, and what are the implications for you.  So certainly information dissemination.

237              A sort of passive website is not necessarily going to attract persons with disabilities, because there is a strong ‑‑ and, again, this is not the responsibility, necessarily, of industry or the CRTC, but certainly the rule of thumb in terms of accessibility within the disability community is that there isn't anything, and if there is something, I won't be able to afford it.

238              That, again, is a barrier.

239              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you, Ms Moore.

240              I want to move on quickly, because I have taken a lot of your time, to a couple of issues related more to websites and customer service‑related issues.

241              Can you tell me, as it relates to the service providers ‑‑ the broadcasters, the BDUs, the telecommunications companies ‑‑ in relation to their websites, what information and services you believe would be useful to increase accessibility for persons who are blind or who have vision loss?

242              MS MOORE:  Well, on websites I think the obvious things, I think, are already covered:  what is available that is accessible, and accessible to whom?  So it is an accessible phone for someone with vision loss or someone with mobility issues, dexterity issues?

243              So that, I think, in some places, is there.  If isn't, should be.  And an easy way to get there.

244              And, you know, it's a given that the actual website, itself, should be accessible.  The whole website, because a person may want more information about something else.  And you can't predict what your customers wants information on, so best to make the whole thing available.

245              But the other thing that would certainly improve would be a boiling down, or at least the full text, of the customer service manuals:  the how‑to.

246              Now, quite often they arrive on CD as part of your new mobile device, let's say, but the CD, by itself, again, is not accessible, it's not navigable.  And so you may have a 200‑page manual on your CD and you simply are not able ‑‑ because if you are only doing it audibly and it's not navigable, so it hasn't been saved in a way that you can go to page 32, because the table of contents says how to set up on your phone is on page 32, I need to be able to go to page 32, not go forward or back in an analogue process with a digital CD.  So that would improve.

247              So manuals, the customer guides, whatever, how to use your new whatever, done in navigable audio version, which could be on the website that would help.

248              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

249              I want to move now to your comments related to establishing consultations or establishing an ongoing institute to ensure ongoing consultations between industry and persons with disabilities and the CRTC itself.

250              I wondered if you could tell me.  We have on the record ‑‑ different parties have put forward different views regarding the benefits that would come from such consultations and some parties have proposed that consultations are only effective if there is a particular purpose.

251              So what would be your views as to the role of this group?  Would it be to address purpose‑driven issues, purpose‑driven consultations?  Or would it be more a broad sort of policy, just a place for ongoing, in general, discussions and awareness‑building and so on?

252              MS MOORE:  Well, I think there's two levels of consultation that are required.  Regardless of whether it's a general consultation or a specific technical consultation, purpose‑driven is essential, because otherwise no one knows what...so you end up with just a lot of information and suggestions that aren't necessarily applicable in any given direction.

253              So purpose‑driven is crucial.  But I would suggest there's two areas where consultation needs to take place.  We need to determine the gaps in needs in the disability community, I think, through some pretty comprehensive surveying of persons with disabilities themselves.

254              We, the organizations, represent groups, but I really think it would be useful ‑‑ and it's something that the disability community at this point doesn't have the capacity to do unaided ‑‑ is to survey the actual people sitting at home trying to get their TV to work as to what they need and what does high definition mean to them in the coming months, et cetera, et cetera.

255              So that's a general survey.  And that doesn't necessarily have to be done more than once.  And, again, it should be specific.  There should be a purpose to it.  Is it about broadcasting?  Is it about hand‑held devices?

256              But the second consultation which should be the ongoing one is the consultation with the technical experts that do exist within the disability community with, again, purpose‑driven, measurable outcomes that are determined to track the progress of improving accessibility, now be it in described video, be it in video relay or be it in the broader systemic needs around Internet protocols, et cetera, et cetera.

257              So that technical expertise does exist in pockets in the disability community, it's the how to get it done, and that's where the rubber hits the road, if I can use that very worn out cliche.  That's what's needed to move things forward.

258              And that, again, I will go back to, needs to be done within the context of the CRTC and within the context of a regulatory mechanism.  Because if not, it becomes less effective.  Because, again, as I said before, it's very difficult for one company to move ahead and go ahead of the pack because there is a competitive disadvantage, I would argue, in doing so.

259              So we need to look at specific problems, specific solutions, technically based, that allows the industry to talk to the disability community on that technical level.

260              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you for that.

261              I want to say to you that you have been a very effective spokesperson in bringing forward the many priorities of the group that you are representing here and I understand, you know, all are important priorities, as they are, and I think as you have, as I said, effectively put forward, but I'm going to now ask you, the difficult question, if you will, is, if we needed to prioritize these different issues?

262              And, you know, you speak about establishing an institute, increasing described video, addressing emergency services, you speak of alternate formats and websites that are 100 per cent compliant.  Can you put those in some sort of order of priority for us?

263              MS MOORE:  Yes.

264              Actually, for myself, it's very easy, and for our organization.  What we need is an institute or a mechanism that coordinates research, that coordinates information that already exists, coordinates information dissemination, that will enable us to make systemic changes in the regulatory system at the start of new and emerging technologies.

265              The rest are very important, but they are doable now.  We know what to do about them now.  The question is how, when and who's going to pay for it.  But what really, really worries me is the emerging technologies, the emerging requirements, the discussions around net neutrality.  I mean, there's a long list that we, in the disability community, are completely out of the loop on.  And by the time it becomes apparent to us, it may be too late.  We will be back to reactive, retrofitting of something.

266              Convergence is the best thing that ever happened to the disability community, except that it's the worst thing that ever happened.  So with the right approach to be able to look at the systemic requirements to keep the accessibility open and possible that's the priority, that's the thing that will serve us into the future and line us up with other countries and with the global situation.

267              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you very much, Ms Moore.

268              Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.

269              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much.

270              I have got a few follow‑up questions, and maybe some of my fellow commissioners have some as well.

271              Ms Moore, you talk about the institute and collaboration and coordination.  Can you tell us to what extent the industry, your industry, has been able to work with the broader telecommunications carriers and broadcasters in trying to work together to identify some of these challenges and resolve them?  Has that ever happened?  Have you tried it and failed?

272              MS MOORE:  Well, I never say failed.  We have made several attempts, particularly with the decision in 2006 of the allocation and deferral of funds of 5 per cent, and that sort of kickstarted, maybe, we could say, the latest rounds of consultation with the industry.

273              I have to say that the barriers to effective consultation are what I have already described: that each company, the industry, it's a highly competitive industry, with a lot of the control outside of our borders, in terms of terminal equipment, and that sort of thing, so the consultations tend to be very difficult because one company cannot move by itself necessarily.

274              Now, there has been some progress made, there's been some results of the consultations that we had in 2006 that have been good, but I don't think that we are going to see effective, systemic, let's say calming, of the disability community's worries until we have a consultation process that allows all of the industry to be under the same rubric, in terms of what has to happen next.  That's why we are talking about an institute, or it can be called anything you want, but within the CRTC, that allows that coordination function, but also that describing of the agreement of what are we doing, what are the measurable outcomes, what does success look like in the specific areas of, and I would suggest you would start with what we have in front of us:  DVS, VRS, et cetera.

275              THE CHAIRPERSON:  You actually said the magic two words "deferral account" ‑‑

276              MS MOORE:  Yes.

277              THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ we all live by these days.

278              To what extent have the carriers who actually had some of the deferral account money approved in 2007 consulted with you and your compatriots regarding the utilization of that money during the trial periods?

279              MS MOORE:  We met in 2006, in June, for two days, and it was partly sponsored by the industry, the ILECs.  We met in Toronto.  There were 11 disability organizations.

280              We worked on our recommendations, then we met with the group the second day.  Then a further smaller technical taskforce was put together made up of industry members and technical folks from the disability community, but it broke down, and it broke down ‑‑ I mean, we can talk about anything, but I will go back to the reason that it broke down.

281              The reason that we sort of went back to our respective corners and the disability community recommended an institute, a sort of national institute and national approaches to VRS, et cetera, et cetera, and the industry went back to their respective competitive areas is because of the nature of the two beasts.

282              The industry had not much option except to go back because they were directed to spend the moneys within their own area.  There was not a possibility, from their point of view, of a nation‑wide approach to VRS, although that has since been addressed and is going forward.  But in 2006, it didn't look possible.

283              The disability community saw the opportunity of the $30 million, $30 million‑plus‑change, as being the way to look at that need for the future systemic requirements of design the system, keep the system designed with the accessibility options in place:  expanded broadband, for example, for the transfer of audio files, et cetera.

284              So the minds did not meet at that point.  And, you know, it's pointless to go back there and say, well, this or that should have happened.  It was a good exercise.  It was a good exercise for the disability community.  This continues to be a good exercise.

285              Today, a public hearing like this, I think, is a real step forward.  And I think there is willingness within the industry, but not at the expense of their bottom line.  Well, that may or may not have to be worked out, but there's certainly willingness of the disability community back to that proviso of our capacity at this point, without some additional resourcing is limited to what you are going to get this week.

286              I think we are giving it our best shot, I guess is what I could say, Mr. Katz.

287              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are the lines of communication still open?  I mean, we have approved some of these trials and I understand ‑‑ and we will talk about it during the week ‑‑ some of the carriers have delayed the trials pending this proceeding.  But are the lines of communication still open or, as you have said, you both went back to your own corners and that's where it lies today?

288              MS MOORE:  I will defer to my colleagues from the Canadian Association of the Deaf to speak about VRS and whether the lines are still open or not because I don't know.  I simply don't know.

289              I think a certain willingness was expressed by a small consortium of the carriers, Bell and Rogers and a group representing the smaller cable companies, to consult.  There were some approaches made prior to these, so I would say the lines of communication are open there.

290              However, I will go back to the important proviso that it will not be effective if it's not done within an umbrella that includes all groups, both industry and the disability community.

291              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms Moore.  Those are my questions.

292              Anybody else on the panel?

293              Mr. Simpson.

294              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Good morning, Ms Moore.

295              I would first like to share Commissioner Molnar's statement that you have been a very effective spokesman for your issues.

296              MS MOORE:  Thank you.

297              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  My questioning is not to the funding issue but to the standards, technology standards and systems, that are or are not in place currently, and picking up on your observation about the ever‑expanding technological universe that we are all trying to deal with.

298              As a former writer, I'm familiar with the International Publishers Association and in about 1994, I believe, they participated in the development of an initiative that was matched by visually impaired persons' associations in the creation of DAISY ‑‑

299              MS MOORE:  Yes.

300              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  ‑‑ which is a digital association for information technologies ‑‑

301              MS MOORE:  That's right.

302              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  ‑‑ and I'm curious ‑‑ for those who are not familiar with it, they appeared to have been ‑‑ and I'm assuming this, so I would appreciate your input on this, Ms Moore, but they focused predominantly on the emerging technologies and demands of visually impaired persons with respect to the publishing industry ‑‑

303              MS MOORE:  Right.

304              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  ‑‑ and they now are branching into working with the world consortium on web ‑‑

305              MS MOORE:  Yes.

306              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  ‑‑ issues, but they don't seem to have moved across to the telecommunications and broadcasting environments.  I'm wondering if you have anything that you could share with respect to why they have not and also whether this organization has been effective in achieving international standards for those particular industries.

307              MS MOORE:  Well, I think DAISY, in itself, is an open‑source software that allow the production of a navigable book, and so the focus has been library and global.  There is currently two very good initiatives going on.

308              The Global Library is a consortium of a group, mainly the same players from the DAISY consortium, that are looking at the exchange of audible books through ‑‑ passed borders.  And that ties into a WIPO meeting that was held last week, World International Properties Organization, where a treaty around copyright ‑‑ so I won't go into the details because it's not addressing your issue.

309              But the energy has been in the transfer of books, the production of books, and the dissemination of that, the need for navigable books, and it's going in step with the digitization of libraries.  So NLS, for example, in the U.S., is just now going to a digital format.  CNIB did this four or five years ago.  But that's where the focus has gone.

310              So have these standards been?  Where it has been picked up, happily, is through Microsoft and there will be a capability to do some saving of your audio files in a variation of a DAISY format very soon in there next iteration.  So that's where it's coming from.

311              We are not promoting Microsoft over anyone else, because, as I said, DAISY is open‑source, any company can do this, but it's going to be a built‑in with Microsoft.

312              So has there been an approach to the telecommunications company?  I think it's a function of resources and the enormity of the task, I would say.  We certainly have several people that sit on that consortium from the CNIB.

313              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.

314              Circling back to the effectiveness of this kind of a consortium or this kind of united effort between a publishing industry and technology, are you aware of or are there similar organizations that are working in the telecom and broadcasting space internationally that emulate this type of a working relationship?

315              MS MOORE:  Well, there is a recently formed group, which is a private/public partnership, and it is called the Global Initiative for ‑‑ just a minute, I have to look at my bigger notes here.

316              Pardon me, I'm trying to pretend I can see here, okay?

317              So it's called the G3ict, and it's the Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies, and that's falling out of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that includes in its article 9 access to telecommunications and broadcasting and the second clause in that convention is about early design of inclusive technology at the design stage.

318              So this is a consortium that is ‑‑ they have member like Samsung and they have Air France and they have Sony and they have IBM, along with academics and members of the disability community working on the broader issues of accessibility.

319              And that's where I was talking earlier about this is Canada's opportunity to join that group.  We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we don't have to start from scratch, but we need to join those global initiatives because we live in a global world.  And, again, potentially, from these hearings, this is an opportunity to start.

320              COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you very much.

321              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Commissioner Simpson.

322              Anybody on my right?  No?

323              Again, thank you very, very much for your representation this morning.  You certainly have been an excellent advocate for your constituency, once again.

324              MS MOORE:  Well, thank you.

325              THE CHAIRPERSON:  It's now 10:45.  We will take a break until 11 o'clock.

326              MS MOORE:  Thank you.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1045 / Suspension à 1045

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1102 / Reprise à 1102

327              THE SECRETARY:  Please be seated.  S'il vous plaît, vous asseoir.

328              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.  We will resume.

329              Madam Secretary.

330              LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous allons maintenant procéder avec le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive.  Veuillez vous introduire et présenter vos collègues, puis vous aurez 15 minutes pour faire votre présentation.

PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION

331              M. NOLET : Mesdames et messieurs les commissaires, bonjour.  Je suis Gilles Nolet, président  du Centre québécois de la déficience auditive.  Je suis malentendant.

332              Je suis accompagné, aujourd'hui, avec madame Monique Therrien, la nouvelle directrice générale du CQDA, et monsieur Jacques Racicot, bénévole de l'organisme dans le dossier des nouvelles technologies et parent d'un enfant sourd.

333              Comme vous le savez, le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive est un regroupement d'organismes représentant les personnes vivant avec une surdité au Québec, soit environ 10,67 pour cent de la population, qui croît sans cesse compte tenu du vieillissement de la population et de l'utilisation des iPod, jeux vidéo et autres technologies qui endommagent l'ouïe.

334              Nous sommes ici afin de répéter que nous adhérons au premier principe à considérer dans le présent dossier, qui est celui qu'une personne handicapée ne doit pas payer plus cher pour un service à cause de son handicap, un principe accepté par plusieurs intervenants.

335              Nous adhérons aussi au second principe de l'avis 2008‑08 du CRTC, qui est que les télécommunications et les nouvelles technologies doivent être adaptées aux besoins des personnes handicapées.

336              Nous le savons, le Canada possède deux langues officielles, le français et l'anglais.  Pour les personnes sourdes gestuelles, ce bilinguisme s'exprime à travers la langue des signes du Québec (LSQ) et l'American Sign Language (ASL).

337              Ce bilinguisme du Canada signifie que les francophones et les anglophones ont droit à des technologies et des informations dans leur propre langue d'usage, que ce soit en matière de sous‑titrage codé à la télévision, de services de relais vidéo, de modes d'emploi, d'appareils divers, etc.

338              Par exemple, les appareils téléphoniques pour sourds actuellement utilisés ont des touches de fonction uniquement en anglais, alors qu'ils sont vendus à des francophones, parfois avec ou sans manuel d'emploi en français, manuel parfois écrit dans un français assez douteux.

339              Nous souhaitons donc que les appareils conçus pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité soient accompagnés de touches, de fonctions et de modes d'emploi en français, afin qu'elles puissent jouir entièrement des adaptations techniques qui s'offrent à elles.

340              Il en va de même pour les services qui leur sont rendus.  Ils doivent être adaptés à leur langue maternelle, le français pour les personnes malentendantes et la langue des signes québécoise pour les personnes sourdes gestuelles.

341              Accessibilité aux sites Internet.  La norme W3C dresse une liste des besoins particuliers en matière d'accessibilité des personnes vivant avec une surdité aux sites, ainsi que les solutions afin de répondre à ces besoins.

342              Pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité, ces solutions sont :

343              ‑    le sous‑titrage de toute les images vidéos, ainsi que la possibilité de les agrandir afin de répondre aux besoins des personnes vivant avec une surdité et un problème de vision;

344              ‑    des images, des dessins, des photos, afin d'expliquer visuellement ce qui est écrit;

345              ‑    des textes dans une langue simplifiée;

346              ‑    de l'interprétation en langage signé;

347              ‑    la transcription écrite des éléments audio et vidéo afin que la personne sourde et aveugle puisse consulter le site à l'aide d'une plage tactile.

348              Ces mesures, simples en soi, contribueront à aider tant les personnes sourdes gestuelles que malentendantes, mais contribueront aussi à aider des personnes vivant avec d'autres limitations.

349              Ainsi, les textes simplifiés aideront aussi la compréhension des dyslexiques, des personnes avec une déficience intellectuelle et même des allophones.  Les gros caractères aideront les personnes âgées et les personnes avec perte de vision.  Les textes en braille aideront les malvoyants.

350              Les avantages de l'adaptation sont donc multiples et même avantageux.

351              Nous croyons que les membres de l'Association canadienne des fournisseurs Internet, l'Association canadienne des télécommunications sans fil, l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs, les manufacturiers, entre autres, et les intervenants des organismes communautaires de défense des droits des personnes vivant avec une surdité doivent s'asseoir dès maintenant afin d'étudier la mise en oeuvre des normes W3C dans un avenir très rapproché, principalement dans un Canada qui souhaite offrir des services branchés aux personnes vivant avec une limitation fonctionnelle.

352              Téléphone cellulaire.  Pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité, le téléphone cellulaire est synonyme de messagerie texte ou de téléphone par service de relais.

353              Le débit moyen d'une personne qui parle est environ 150 mots à la minute.  Pour les personnes qui utilisent un clavier, le débit est facilement réduit à 30‑40 mots à la minute, selon la dextérité de la personne, que ce soit sur un clavier ou sur une plage tactile.

354              Écrire un message texte sur un clavier de téléphone cellulaire exige encore plus de temps. Dans les faits, une personne vivant avec une surdité pourrait prendre jusqu'à 80 pour cent plus de temps pour dire la même chose qu'une personne qui utilise sa voix.

355              Les personnes vivant avec une surdité utilisent donc plus de temps d'antenne, et aucun forfait cellulaire, en ce moment, ne tient compte de cet aspect particulier du handicapé.  Cette personne paie aussi plus cher parce que qu'elle utilise plus de temps d'antenne.

356              Pour le CQDA, l'idée d'un rabais de 50 pour cent, semblable à celui offert pour la téléphonie filaire, est à rejeter.  Il serait plus pertinent d'établir un mécanisme qui permettrait aux personnes vivant avec une surdité de s'inscrire, avec preuve à l'appui, afin d'obtenir un forfait déterminé respectant leur incapacité et leurs besoins particuliers.  Il n'est pas ici question d'obtenir un avantage spécial, mais bien une adaptation raisonnable au handicap auditif.

357              Aussi, il serait plus qu'intéressant que soient offerts plus facilement et largement au Canada des téléphones cellulaires avec fil pour les prothèses auditives, ce qui est d'usage courant aux États‑Unis.  Ce petit fil permettrait aux personnes malentendantes d'avoir accès à une technologie qui leur échappe bien souvent en ce moment.

358              Services de relais vidéo.  Le CQDA est d'avis que les services de relais vidéo qui seront mis en place devront l'être dans les deux langues, LSQ/ASL, comme c'est le cas en ce moment pour les services de relais téléphoniques, le tout en accord avec la notion de langues officielles canadiennes.

359              Mais encore plus, la mise en place de ces services de relais devra être jumelée à l'établissement de normes et de règles en matière de qualité.

360              En ce moment, les différents services de relais téléphoniques offrent des services de qualité variant de pauvre à excellente, aucune règle ni norme ayant été établie avant ou au début de leur entrée en fonction, le tout ayant été laissé au libre arbitre des entreprises dispensant ces services.

361              Aussi, l'Association canadienne des fournisseurs Internet devra se sentir interpellée par l'entrée en vigueur du service de relais vidéo puisque les demandes de service, pour la plupart, proviendront d'ordinateurs branchés à l'Internet.

362              Aujourd'hui, les personnes sourdes gestuelles, et les jeunes sourds en particulier, utilisent de plus en plus leur caméra vidéo pour communiquer entre eux.  La webcam et Internet sont donc, pour eux, l'équivalent du téléphone classique.

363              Le service téléphonique filaire local est sujet à un tarif mensuel fixe, ce qui n'est pas le cas du service Internet, qui est régi et facturé sur la base de l'utilisation de la bande passante.

364              Le recours aux communications par webcam et par service de relais exige, pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité, l'utilisation de beaucoup plus de bande passante qu'une autre personne sans handicap auditif, ce qui génère des coûts additionnels.

365              Tout comme pour la téléphonie cellulaire, aucun forfait Internet ne tient compte en ce moment de cet aspect particulier.  Une personne vivant avec une surdité paie donc plus cher parce que ses modes de communication prennent plus de bande passante.

366              Ici encore, le CQDA croit qu'il serait pertinent d'établir un mécanisme qui permettrait aux personnes vivant avec une surdité de s'inscrire, avec preuve à l'appui, afin d'obtenir un tarif particulier respectant leur incapacité.

367              Ce tarif, chez les compagnies actuelles qui offrent les deux services et celles qui les offriront à l'avenir, pourrait comprendre tant le service local de téléphonie que l'accès à Internet.

368              Le sous‑titrage codé.  Depuis plusieurs années, nous entendons parler de quantité de sous‑titrage, mais fort peu de qualité, alors que c'est cette même qualité qui assure une bonne transmission de l'information.

369              L'industrie semble avoir de la difficulté à accroître cette qualité, tout en accroissant, en parallèle, le nombre d'émissions sous‑titrées, et les normes qui régissent cette qualité sont variables d'un télédiffuseur à l'autre.

370              Le CRTC a conclu en ce sens et a  demandé (décision 2008‑8‑1) à l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs (ACR) de coordonner la création de groupes de travail de langue française et de langue anglaise pour élaborer et mettre en place des normes universelles et de proposer et appliquer des solutions concrètes aux autres aspects de la qualité du sous‑titrage, dont des mécanismes destinés à réduire les erreurs et les défaillances techniques (avis public de radiodiffusion 2007‑54).  Le Conseil a approuvé le plan d'action de l'ACR sur la qualité du sous‑titrage en février dernier et attend la remise des conclusions des groupes de travail en novembre 2008.

371              Toutefois, l'ACR n'a pas communiqué avec le CQDA pour ce dossier.  L'ACR ne peut continuer à travailler en vase clos, sans consulter les principaux consommateurs de sous‑titrage.  Le CQDA aurait apprécié être consulté par l'ACR.

372              Le milieu des consommateurs de sous‑titrage doit faire partie prenante des discussions en cours, ainsi que celles à venir.  Tout au moins afin de comprendre la situation et l'expliquer aux consommateurs.  À notre avis, ignorer les personnes qui utilisent le sous‑titrage constitue un non‑sens.

373              Le CQDA demande donc de faire partie des discussions, principalement concernant le sous‑titrage en français.

374              Les services d'urgence.  Le jugement de la Cour suprême connu sous le nom d'Affaire Eldridge conclut qu'omettre de fournir des interprètes gestuels, effectivement nécessaires à l'efficacité des communications dans la prestation des services médicaux, constitue une violation des droits à l'égalité garantis au paragraphe 15(1) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.

375              Nous croyons que la même logique s'applique en matière de sécurité et de services d'urgence.  Si la vie, la sécurité ou la santé de la personne sourde ou malentendante est en danger, il faut recourir aux services d'interprétation.

376              S'il devrait y avoir diffusion de messages télévisuels concernant des mesures d'urgence, ces messages devraient non seulement être sous‑titrés, mais aussi interprétés en langue des signes québécois et en American Sign Language afin de rejoindre les personnes sourdes gestuelles.

377              Nous l'avons dit précédemment et nous le répétons, plusieurs personnes sourdes gestuelles sont analphabètes fonctionnelles.  Elles comprennent les mots, mais pas toujours le sens des phrases.  Elles utilisent le sous‑titrage pour accroître leur compréhension, mais ont aussi beaucoup recours aux images diffusées pour comprendre l'information ou le contenu de l'émission.

378              En situation d'urgence, le texte ne suffit donc pas.  Il leur faut de l'information claire, directe et dans leur langue.  Il en va de leur santé, de leur sécurité, et parfois même de leur vie.

379              La situation actuelle du service 9‑1‑1 nous inquiète parce qu'elle ne permet pas aux personnes vivant avec une surdité de rejoindre les services de manière aussi rapide que si elles étaient entendantes, ce qui peut être un risque pour leur santé, leur sécurité et même leur vie.

380              Nous savons que ce problème est très complexe à résoudre et, dans l'immédiat, nous n'avons pas de solution à proposer, mais nous sommes prêts à collaborer en tout temps avec le milieu et les chercheurs afin de trouver une solution efficace qui pourrait sauver des vies.

381              Une vision inclusive.  L'inclusion signifie que l'on a pensé, avant même de mettre en marché un produit ou un service, aux problèmes auxquels auront à faire face les personnes vivant avec une limitation fonctionnelle et que l'on a résolu ces problèmes, alors que l'intégration signifie adapter le service ou le produit après sa mise en marché, ce qui coûte souvent beaucoup plus cher pour l'industrie.

382              Tous les intervenants au présent dossier doivent donc, à l'avenir, travailler de manière inclusive et non intégrative.

383              Pour ce faire, le CQDA est prêt à participer à toute instance, à tout comité de travail et à tout groupe souhaitant travailler de manière soutenue à l'inclusion des personnes handicapées dans la société canadienne par le biais des nouvelles technologies parce que travailler à cette inclusion signifie traiter les personnes vivant avec une surdité à part égale.  Ne pas le faire, c'est les laisser tout simplement à part.

384              Merci, messieurs et mesdames les commissaires d'avoir pris le temps de m'écouter.

385              LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Nolet.

386              Je demanderais à la Conseillère Lamarre de commencer les questions.

387              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

388              Merci, Monsieur Nolet.  Merci à vous tous d'être ici ce matin pour répondre à nos questions.

389              Monsieur Nolet, étant donné que vous présidez votre groupe, je vous adresserai directement les questions, mais sentez‑vous à l'aise de désigner un de vos collègues pour me répondre si nécessaire.

390              J'ai lu attentivement vos soumissions, j'ai écouté aussi attentivement votre présentation, et il y a plusieurs sujets pour lesquels j'ai des questions.

391              Alors, tout d'abord, mes questions porteront sur les services de télécommunication, ensuite, le sous‑titrage, et en dernier, je vous demanderai des précisions sur les questions que j'appellerais complémentaires, faute d'avoir trouvé un meilleur terme.

392              Donc, allons‑y pour les questions sur les services de télécommunication, si vous êtes d'accord.

393              Le premier sujet que j'aimerais toucher avec vous, c'est le service de relais de message qui est en voie de subir une transformation avec les avènements auxquels vous avez déjà fait allusion, soit les services de relais par vidéo et même les services de relais par protocole Internet.

394              Dans des mémoires qui ont été déposés devant le Conseil, il est question de la pertinence de maintenir ou d'abolir le service traditionnel de relais de message une fois que les services vidéo et par protocole Internet auront été déployés.

395              J'aimerais connaître votre opinion à ce sujet‑là, précisément à savoir si vous pensez que dans certaines circonstances, ce serait, effectivement, approprié d'abolir le service de relais message traditionnel et si, dans d'autres circonstances, ce serait plutôt préférable de le maintenir.

396              M. RACICOT : Si vous le permettez, je vais répondre à cette question.

397              Quand vous faites appel à ou que vous nommez le service de relais traditionnel, vous parlez évidemment, des services de relais téléphonique...

398              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Oui.

399              M. RACICOT : ...tels qu'ils existent actuellement, et ce service de relais téléphonique utilise comme terminal un appareil que, dans notre langage, on nomme un ATS, c'est‑à‑dire un appareil qui permet de retranscrire la voix dans un message écrit.

400              Ce que je peux vous dire par rapport à ça, c'est que nous ne voyons pas qu'il soit possible dans un avenir du moins immédiat de remplacer ce type de service là pour plusieurs raisons.

401              Un, le fait que les équipements terminaux qui sont nécessaires à établir des services de relais texte tel qu'on connaît, que ce soit par MSN ou tout type de transmission de ce type là, exigent des équipements qui ne sont pas actuellement disponibles pour les personnes qui vivent avec une surdité.

402              L'achat de ces équipements‑là, que ce soit un ordinateur, que ce soit un autre type de terminal, est actuellement trop onéreux, du moins pour le Québec, et les services de fourniture de ce type d'équipement là ne sont pas du tout prêts à remplacer ce type d'appareil, l'appareil ATS qui est actuellement existant.

403              Deuxième situation, c'est que les gens qui utilisent ce type d'appareil là sont actuellement trop habitués à utiliser ce genre de technologie là pour passer immédiatement à un autre service de relais texte par exemple.

404              L'établissement d'un service de relais vidéo ne signifie pas du tout l'abandon d'un service de relais texte, puisque avec un service de relais vidéo, on s'adresse à une population plus particulière, qu'on appelle les personnes qui communiquent par geste, donc, qui utilisent un langage gestuel.

405              Mais je dois vous rappeler que cette portion de la population n'est pas la totalité des personnes qui vit avec une surdité, mais qu'il existe encore énormément de " personnes malentendantes " qui vont continuer d'utiliser le langage écrit pour communiquer avec des personnes qui sont elles‑mêmes entendantes.

406              Est‑ce que ça répond à votre question?

407              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Ça répond très bien à ma question, merci.

408              Ma prochaine question porte plus spécifiquement sur le déploiement éventuel de service de relais par protocole Internet et service de relais par vidéo.

409              Alors, pour ces services, outre la disponibilité nationale de ces services‑là, quels aspects de leur mise en oeuvre devrait‑on considérer prioritaire?

410              M. RACICOT : Est‑ce que vous pouvez préciser un peu votre question?

411              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Oui.  Par exemple, bon, on conçoit qu'une des priorités, ça serait de rendre le service disponible à travers le Canada.  Est‑ce que, selon vous, ça devrait être aussi disponible dans les deux langues officielles?  Est‑ce qu'il y a des heures de disponibilité qu'on devrait prévoir?

412              M. RACICOT : D'accord.  Bon, la première réponse, en tout cas, à votre question, c'est, évidemment, la disponibilité dans les deux langues.  Il n'est pas question pour nous que le service soit accessible uniquement, par exemple, aux personnes de langue anglophone ou qui utilisent l'équivalent de la langue anglophone, soit l'American Sign Language, et que ce service ne soit pas accessible aux francophones qui utilisent la langue des signes québécoise dans un même temps.

413              L'utilisation des langues officielles existe au Canada, et je ne verrais pas du tout l'approbation officielle de l'utilisation d'un service dans une langue et qui ne soit pas dans l'autre.  C'est la même situation pour nous.  Il est hors de question et complètement indu qu'un service soit installé dans une langue uniquement et non pas dans l'autre.

414              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Pensez‑vous que ce type de service là, de technologie là, ça pourrait être une solution pour palier à certaines difficultés pour les appels d'urgence que vous avez mentionné dans votre introduction?

415              M. RACICOT : Effectivement, c'est une solution.  Ce n'est pas la seule solution qui pourrait exister, mais il appert que c'est une solution qui permet à des personnes qui ont de la difficulté à lire... parce que monsieur Nolet en a parlé dans son texte, très souvent, les personnes qui utilisent la langue gestuelle ont, malheureusement, des difficultés de lecture et doivent, conséquemment, composer avec la langue des signes comme étant le meilleur moyen de communication et surtout celui qui leur permet d'être beaucoup plus précis dans leur compréhension et dans leur expression.

416              On se rappelle que dans les services d'urgence, très souvent, la précision du texte ou la précision du message comme tel est un élément très important, que ça soit dans un sens ou dans l'autre, que ça soit dans le sens communiquer vers le service d'urgence pour signifier qu'on a une crise cardiaque, donc, signifier nos malaises, donc, préciser, par exemple, de quoi on souffre, et dans l'autre sens, pour recevoir, que ça soit des ordres d'évacuation, que ça soit des avertissements de coupure de système d'électricité, que ça soit des inondations.

417              Écoutez, je ne pourrai pas vous nommer tous les services d'urgence qui peuvent exister, mais je pense que vous pouvez très bien comprendre que, et dans un sens et dans l'autre, la précision du message dans une situation d'urgence devient essentielle et non pas... on ne peut pas se contenter d'un message général.  Il faut avoir les directions où aller, allez vers la droite, allez vers la gauche, allez vers le sud, allez vers le nord.

418              Donc, toutes ces indications‑là se doivent d'être aussi précises que possible, et, conséquemment, d'être communiquées dans la langue la plus accessible et surtout la plus compréhensible pour la personne qui émet ou reçoit le message.

419              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Au paragraphe 31 de votre soumission du mois de juillet, vous proposez de faire usage des services sans fil et les appareils qui sont associés à ces services‑là en remplacement de l'installation de téléscripteurs dans les téléphones publics.

420              Cependant, le service sans fil, lui non plus n'est pas exempt de contraintes.  Par exemple, le service n'est pas nécessairement disponible partout en milieu rural ou éloigné.  La situation topographique ou même la géographie urbaine, si vous me permettez l'expression, peut altérer, voire même empêcher la transmission de signaux.

421              Donc, à prime abord, j'aurais plutôt eu tendance à considérer ces appareils sans fil complémentaires et non pas suppléants aux téléscripteurs.  Pouvez‑vous élaborer un peu plus sur votre point de vue à ce sujet‑là?

422              M. RACICOT : Le départ de cette réflexion et même, à la limite, proposition vient du fait que toute la... je ne dirais pas la technologie, mais l'installation comme telle de téléphones publics est, pour nous, une espèce en voie de disparition au profit de la téléphonie cellulaire.

423              Je ne pense pas qu'on assiste à l'augmentation comme telle de la téléphonie ou, en tout cas, des services de téléphone public.  Toute l'industrie et le marketing par rapport à cette technologie‑là, je dirais, ou, en tout cas,  l'utilisation des téléphones publics, nous considérons que c'est une espèce en voie de disparition.

424              Alors, conséquemment, d'investir énormément d'argent dans une technologie ou dans un système en voie de disparition, pour nous autres, nous apparaît un non‑sens, plutôt que de penser à utiliser tout l'argent qui est nécessaire ou qui existe par rapport à cette disposition‑là en vue de développer quelque chose de compatible entre la téléphonie cellulaire ou du moins un appareil qui permettrait aux gens de se brancher directement sur les téléphones publics, plutôt que de transformer ces téléphones publics là comme tel.

425              Alors, pour nous autres, c'est une question d'investissement de sommes d'argent que l'industrie va faire si le CRTC lui ordonne, mais on peut se poser la question si elle est maintenant nécessaire ou en tout cas si c'est une disposition qui est sensée dans notre monde d'évolution technologique actuelle.

426              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Je vais passer aux questions sur le sous‑titrage, mais juste avant, je tiens à vous signaler que j'ai bien pris note de vos commentaires, autant dans votre soumission que dans votre présentation, au sujet des frais supplémentaires inhérents aux services qui sont utilisés par les personnes qui souffrent d'une déficience auditive.  Alors, je n'ai pas de questions à poser parce que j'ai bien compris.

427              En ce qui concerne le sous‑titrage, mes premières questions portent autant sur ce que vous dites et ce que vous ne dites pas dans vos mémoires.

428              À la page 13 de votre mémoire de septembre, c'est un entre‑filet, vous affirmez... en réponse à une question qui ne tient pas au sous‑titrage, vous affirmez que depuis l'arrivée de la technologie de la reconnaissance vocale en matière de sous‑titrage codé pour la télévision, les personnes vivant avec une surdité se plaignent de la piètre qualité du français.

429              Est‑ce que vous faites référence ici uniquement au sous‑titrage dans les émissions en direct?

430              MME THERRIEN : Principalement, mais ce matin, juste pour vous mettre devant le fait, nous regardions le sous‑titrage en direct qui se fait aujourd'hui.  Avec tout le respect que nous avons pour les gens qui travaillent pour cette technologie‑là, il est très difficile de suivre le sous‑titrage en français qui est fait ici, ce matin, à moins de comprendre les sons qui sont tapés parfois.  Ce sont des mots qui sont mis côte à côte, mais ce sont des sons.  Alors, une personne sourdre gestuelle ne serait pas en mesure de comprendre quoi que ce soit ce matin en lisant le texte écrit.

431              Donc, pour répondre à votre question, l'une des plus grandes difficultés, c'est effectivement le direct au niveau du français.  Bien que le différé, eux, ils ont le temps de corriger, alors, tout est là.

432              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Donc, outre l'exemple que vous venez de nous donner de ce matin, est‑ce que vous avez d'autres exemples précis dans des émissions, par exemple, d'affaires publiques ou de nouvelles qui sont en direct, qui vous viennent à l'esprit au niveau de l'expérience que vous vivez ou que les gens que vous représentez vivent?

433              MME THERRIEN : Je n'ai pas d'exemple concret.  Vous comprendrez que notre organisme ne fait pas de veille technologique particulière pour le sous‑titrage.  Nous traitons tous les dossiers de la surdité au Québec.

434              Donc, ce que nous avons, c'est vraiment les commentaires de nos usagers, qui se plaignent principalement des nouvelles où on va changer de sujet, et la phrase précédente n'est pas terminée.  On change de sujet, on est incapable de suivre.  Alors, le problème est vraiment principalement avec les émissions en direct.

435              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Maintenant, d'une part...  Oui?

436              M. RACICOT : J'aimerais juste rajouter.

437              Une des grandes difficultés, il faut l'admettre, c'est que l'investissement et le sous‑titrage en direct du côté anglophone est de loin supérieur à celui fait du côté francophone.  On doit admettre, quelque part possiblement, que la langue française est plus complexe possiblement que la langue anglaise.

438              Mais pour moi, c'est peut‑être une notion de quantité d'investissement, soit de temps, d'énergie, d'argent qui ont été consacrés à chacun de ces volets‑là.

439              Je n'ai pas la réponse exacte, mais le constat est que : un, lorsqu'on est ici ce matin et qu'on regarde les deux écrans, c'est‑à‑dire l'écran anglophone ou l'écran anglais et l'écran francophone, un est plus rapide que l'autre dans la présentation du texte, et un est plus précis et complet que l'autre dans la présentation du texte, et malheureusement, c'est le côté francophone qui en souffre.

440              Est‑ce que c'est une question de sommes, de montant d'énergie, de langue?  J'aimerais vous répondre à ça avec précision, mais possiblement que des personnes encore plus expertes que nous autres pourront vous répondre ou pourraient répondre à cette question‑là.  Mais le constat malheureux qui est à faire, c'est que les personnes qui sont francophones sont désavantagées à ce niveau‑là, et de loin.

441              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Monsieur Nolet, vous voulez ajouter quelque chose.

442              M. NOLET :  Je veux parler comme consommateur, et bienheureux ou malheureusement, j'ai quand même un ratio que j'ai que je peux entendre avec le micro, et quand, aujourd'hui, j'écoute, j'ai... un ou l'autre.  Mais ce n'est pas toute la communauté sourde.  Il y a les sourds profonds... très sévère.  On en perd des bouts.  Surtout l'information en général, c'est un gros, gros problème pour moi.

443              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Vous avez fait allusion, dans votre présentation, sur la quantité du sous‑titrage par rapport à la qualité.  Vous avez dit, bon, la quantité augmente, mais la qualité ne suffit pas toujours.

444              Maintenant, en se concentrant uniquement sur la quantité et en présumant qu'elle est de qualité acceptable, est‑ce que vous estimez que présentement, la quantité de sous‑titrage qui est disponible en télévision est suffisante, est à un niveau acceptable pour vous?

445              MME THERRIEN:  Pour l'instant, non, puisque si l'on regarde les télédiffuseurs privés, ce sont eux qui ont le pourcentage de sous‑titrage le moins élevé.  On l'a vu en juin dernier, TQS était à environ... je crois que c'était 45 pour‑cent.  TVA était peut‑être à une soixantaine, si ma mémoire est bonne et Radio‑Canada était le chef de file, mais n'atteignait pas encore l'entièreté du sous‑titrage.

446              Alors, nous, les francophones, on est toujours un peu en arrière aussi, si on compare avec les anglophones qui bénéficient d'un bassin beaucoup plus large d'émissions qui proviennent d'ailleurs.

447              Certains intervenants ont proposé que les radiodiffuseurs adoptent une politique interne de contrôle de qualité du sous‑titrage.  Selon vous, qu'est‑ce que cette politique‑là, si elle était adoptée, devrait prévoir?

448              M. RACICOT:  Vous savez, la notion de contrôle de qualité interne par l'industrie nous fait énormément peur parce que:  est‑ce qu'on peut être celui qui livre le service et celui qui évalue la qualité du service qu'on livre?

449              C'est assez difficile de s'autocritiquer soi‑même et de se rendre coupable de... de finalement de se déclarer coupable d'erreur, comme telle.

450              Actuellement, l'exemple que je peux vous donner, c'est dans le service de relais téléphonique.  Il existe ce qu'on appelle un comité aviseur, un comité comme tel qui se rencontre régulièrement avec l'industrie en question ou le service en question afin de suivre le développement ou l'accroissement de la qualité et de la quantité en rapport avec le service offert.

451              Je peux vous dire que dans un cas en particulier (puis, je vais le nommer), dans le cas du service de relais Bell, ce fonctionnement ou cette mesure fonctionne très bien et donne des résultats excellents.

452              Il faut dire que d'emblée, la mise en place des normes, ou la mise en place des normes de qualité et de quantité a été faite conjointement entre les associations de consommateurs (ou les associations qui représentent les consommateurs) et l'industrie elle‑même, ce qui a donné lieu à un consensus en termes des normes finales.

453              Lorsque ce service‑là n'existe pas, à ce moment‑là, on constate malheureusement que la qualité et que la quantité du service donné est de loin déficiente.  Et en ce sens‑là, pour nous, il devient essentiel qu'il existe des normes universelles, il faut le dire.  Pourquoi est‑ce qu'un service serait désavantagé par rapport à un autre en offrant plus de qualité, donc en étant soumis à une pression financière supplémentaire et que l'autre compagnie à côté, en esquivant, finalement, je veux dire... le respect de normes ou de services aux consommateurs pourrait générer, à la limite, un profit supplémentaire.

454              Alors, pour nous, il devient important que le CRTC se prononce en faveur de l'établissement de normes communes à l'industrie soit de la radiodiffusion ou soit de la télécommunication envers le consommateur.

455              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Donc, si je comprends bien ce que vous me dites, c'est qu'une telle politique interne ne devrait pas inclure l'auto‑évaluation?  C'est que l'évaluation devrait être faite par un organisme consultatif extérieur et qui ne comprend pas uniquement le producteur de sous‑titrages?

456              M. RACICOT:  Effectivement.  Et c'est ce qui se produit dans le cas du relais téléphonique.  C'est une compagnie indépendante qui effectue la vérification de la norme de services de quantité et de qualité.

457              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Parlons justement de l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs qui remettra (et vous l'avez souligné) prochainement les rapports des groupes de travail.

458              Premier commentaire que j'aimerais faire, suite à votre présentation:  Vous avez mentionné dans votre présentation que votre centre n'avait pas été consulté, mais je tiens à vous mentionner que le Regroupement québécois du sous‑titrage faisait partie du groupe.  Alors, c'est une information que vous voudriez commenter?

459              MME THERRIEN:  C'est que c'est la Ressource québécoise pour le sous‑titrage, le Regroupement québécois pour le sous‑titrage n'existe plus depuis plusieurs années et c'est un organisme privé qui ne représente pas de façon aussi...

460              Bien, c'est un organisme... ce n'est pas un organisme impartial comme le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive qui représente les consommateurs sourds, il faut s'entendre.  Je voulais juste faire cette mise au point‑là, pour le RQST.

461              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Oui.  Merci de me corriger et je note votre commentaire.

462              Maintenant, dans ce rapport, on s'attend justement à ce qu'ils décrivent une nouvelle norme qu'on voudra universelle pour le sous‑titrage.  Selon vous, est‑ce que le Conseil devrait exiger des radiodiffuseurs, par condition de licence, qu'ils adhèrent et utilisent cette nouvelle norme, une fois qu'on sera d'accord sur la norme?

463              MME THERRIEN:  Il faudra qu'on soit d'accord sur la norme, mais qu'on soit consulté pour être d'accord sur la norme.  À partir de ce moment‑là, oui, je crois qu'il devrait y avoir obligation.

464              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Merci.

465              M. RACICOT:  Est‑ce que je peux rajouter quelque chose?

466              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Oui.

467              M. RACICOT:  Et je vais revenir sur la partie du texte qui touchait à l'inclusion.

468              C'est toujours extrêmement difficile pour nous autres de répondre ou de se prononcer à un rapport une fois qu'il est produit.  C'est vraiment différent de se consulter lors de la production ou lors des comités de discussion parce qu'on pense à toutes sortes de sujets, ça nous fait penser à cette solution‑là...  Ça nous donne également des fois (et presque tout le temps) la possibilité de consulter nos membres par rapport à tel sujet ou tel autre sujet.

469              Vous savez, quand le rapport est déjà écrit, on est comme dirigé vers un tel sujet ou un tel sujet et ça en élude d'autres.  Alors, c'est dans ce sens‑là qu'on parle d'inclusion, donc, de consultation préalable et non pas après le fait.  C'est toujours plus difficile de réparer quelque chose qui a été construit que de l'adapter à la source.

470              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Merci.  Alors, ce qui a été proposé entre autres pour (je n'utiliserai plus le même mot) le RQST (comme ça, je suis certaine de ne pas me tromper) c'est qu'une mesure de la qualité du sous‑titrage soit établie en comptant les erreurs et en établissant un taux d'erreur acceptable ou non.

471              Alors, si on devait retenir cette proposition‑là, selon vous, comment est‑ce qu'on devrait définir une erreur et comment est‑ce qu'on pourrait les identifier?

472              M. RACICOT:  La notion d'erreur comme telle se situe à deux niveaux, principalement.  Il y a les erreurs de compréhension dans le texte et il y a les erreurs d'orthographe.  C'est deux choses qui sont complètement différentes et, évidemment, que la notion prioritaire, entre parenthèses, est évidemment la notion de compréhension.

473              Mais je ne voudrais surtout pas prioriser cette notion d'erreur de compréhension au profit d'erreurs d'orthographe puisqu'il faut le comprendre.  Le sous‑titrage comme tel fait appel également à la notion d'apprentissage de la langue et c'est notre représentation lexicographique, finalement, de notre langue.

474              Et ça s'adresse aux jeunes, ça s'adresse aux personnes âgées; ça s'adresse aussi aux émigrants ou aux personnes qui tentent d'apprendre le français.

475              Et si en partant, on accepte d'emblée qu'on ait un taux d'erreur ou qu'on ait un taux d'omission ou d'interprétation de mauvaise qualité, quelle image est‑ce qu'on donne à notre langue française à ceux qui nous regardent.

476              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Pour compléter cette question‑là, advenant qu'on accepte le concept d'un système de surveillance (peu importe lequel), est‑ce que ça devrait faire l'objet, selon vous, d'une condition de licence pour les radiodiffuseurs, d'avoir un tel système de surveillance et d'y adhérer?

477              M. RACICOT:  Évidemment que...  Et je répète ce qu'on a énoncé un petit peu auparavant.  L'établissement d'un comité de surveillance (appelez‑le comme vous voudrez), d'un comité aviseur, d'un comité de surveillance, d'une agence de surveillance, le terme lui‑même, je ne veux pas lui donner de nom précis, mais que ce comité‑là soit indépendant ou, à la limite, sous l'autorité du CRTC, pour moi, je veux dire, c'est... c'est quelque chose d'équivalent, c'est en tout cas une notion équivalente.

478              Il faut qu'on fasse rapport à votre agence, ou en tout cas, du moins au CRTC, des résultats de la surveillance comme telle du sous‑titrage à la télévision.  Il faut que vous soyez en mesure de réagir rapidement et non pas par la voix de mécanismes différenciés (ou de mécanismes à retardement) et de revenir en audience ou et cetera.

479              Il faut que vous ayez une autorité directe, au moins pour plusieurs années.  Par la suite, peut‑être qu'il sera possible de relâcher un petit peu le contrat, mais pas au moins, je dirais, pour les cinq prochaines années.  Il faut absolument faire quelque chose par rapport à ça.

480              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  J'en suis rendue à mes questions sur les sujets dits complémentaires; et ça porte surtout sur les modalités d'échange avec les entreprises autant en télécommunication qu'avec les radiodiffuseurs.

481              Dans les échanges avec les fournisseurs de services, il y a toujours beaucoup d'information qui est donnée.  Vous avez fait allusion, entre autres, les manuels d'utilisation de certains équipements.  Et pour les personnes qui ont des déficiences auditives, sous quelle forme ces informations‑là sont‑elles pour vous le plus avantageusement disponibles, ou devraient l'être?

482              M. RACICOT:  Actuellement, et je répète:  La notion de compréhension du message (parce que le manuel d'utilisation d'un appareil technologique c'est un message qui est donné à un consommateur) et il doit l'être de façon la plus précise possible et disponible dans la langue qui leur est plus accessible en terme de consommateurs.

483              Heureusement (on doit le dire maintenant) Internet nous permet de diffuser des images, des vidéos ou des messages qui permettent de comprendre, je veux dire, finalement, ces notions‑là.  Que ça soit par Internet ou que ça soit par un autre mécanisme, il est maintenant possible de diffuser des messages en langue signée, ce qui n'était pas le cas auparavant.

484              Donc, l'accroissement de l'utilisation de messages vidéos, que ce soit par le biais d'Internet, que ce soit par le biais de disques, de CD ou de DVD ou et cetera, il n'y a plus de barrière, maintenant, je veux dire, à l'utilisation de ce type de technologie‑là.  Alors, je ne vois pas pourquoi on ne devrait pas en...  premièrement recommander, je veux dire, l'augmentation et l'utilisation et probablement, en venir à l'obligation de le faire quelque part.

485              MME THERRIEN:  J'aimerais aussi compléter.

486              Les manuels mériteraient aussi d'être adaptés dans un langage beaucoup plus simple et plus imagé.  Ça ne servirait pas seulement qu'aux personnes sourdes gestuelles qui comprennent moins bien le français, mais ça servirait vraiment à des allophones, à des gens... à des dyslexiques qui ne comprennent pas les structures lorsqu'ils les lisent et ainsi de suite.

487              Alors, les sites Internet, les manuels mériteraient d'avoir tant les signes, mais tant de l'information visuelle qui aiderait tout le monde finalement.

488              M. RACICOT:  Et je dois rajouter...  Puis, si vous avez déjà eu affaire avec ces fameux manuels qui sont d'abord conçus en anglais et par la suite traduits par un dictionnaire ou un équipement de transcription souvent un peu déficient et que vous essayez de monter une tablette, un appareil quelconque à l'aide de ce manuel écrit en français, je pense que vous n'aurez pas le produit final escompté, au bout de la ligne, ou vous allez prendre six mois de plus pour le construire, quelque chose de même.

489              C'est très connu, je veux dire, que les manuels d'instruction traduits en français qui proviennent d'un pays étranger sont souvent très mal traduits.  Alors, l'utilisation d'images, de pictogrammes ou en tout cas de ce type de technologie‑là (et on est capable maintenant de le faire) serait de loin appropriée.

490              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Votre commentaire se passe de commentaire.

491              Le type de votre groupe est le Centre québécois (et je souligne le mot québécois) de la déficience auditive.  Au préambule de votre mémoire de juillet, vous ajoutez que votre groupe est le seul représentant les personnes francophones ayant une surdité au Canada... vivant avec une surdité au Canada.

492              Est‑ce que vous avez des contacts avec des personnes qui ont une déficience auditive et qui vivent à l'extérieur du Québec?  Les francophones à l'extérieur du Québec, est‑ce que vous obtenez leurs commentaires?  Est‑ce qu'eux vous contactent pour obtenir des services?  Est‑ce qu'ils font appel à vous pour l'accessibilité de services en français en télécommunication et en radiodiffusion?

493              M. RACICOT:  Il existe, à notre connaissance, une seule autre organisation qui regroupe des personnes qui sont francophones en Ontario, organisation avec laquelle on n'a malheureusement pas énormément de contacts, je l'avoue.  Et il faut...

494              Et madame Therrien disait, au départ:  Il faut aussi comprendre que notre organisation ne dispose pas d'un budget illimité.  Au contraire, nous vivons avec une personne ou des fois deux personnes à notre emploi.  Donc, nos moyens sont limités par rapport à ça.

495              Mais... et on le souligne, je veux dire.  Notre volonté de coopérer ou de collaborer existe, c'est très clair, mais il faut vivre avec les moyens financiers qui nous sont impartis, ce qui est souvent très difficile à accomplir dans le quotidien.

496              MME THERRIEN:  Bien souvent, les informations nous proviennent de gens du Québec qui ont des contacts avec ces francophones‑là.  Donc, ce sont nos membres du Québec qui nous rapportent des situations ou des commentaires ou des plaintes vécus par les francophones hors Québec.

497              CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE:  Je vous remercie.  Je n'ai plus d'autre question.  Monsieur le Président?

498              LE PRÉSIDENT:  Merci.  Est‑ce qu'il y a d'autres questions sur le Conseil?  Non?  Le Conseil juridique?

499              MME LEHOUX:  Merci, Monsieur Katz.  J'ai eux petites questions à vous poser.

500              Alors, dans un premier temps, étant donné que les services de relais vidéo et par Internet sont offerts (évidemment, par l'Internet) et que les usagers peuvent avoir les mêmes problèmes que le service VOIP local mobile, c'est‑à‑dire qu'on ne peut pas nécessairement déterminer d'où vient l'appel sans que la personne qui a fait l'appel donne ses coordonnées à l'opératrice, à cet égard, le Conseil, évidemment, a mis en place certaines protections dans la décision 2005‑21, qui exige entre autres aux compagnies de VOIP d'aviser leur clientèle de toute limite avant de commencer à fournir les services et pendant la durée du contrat de service.  Puis, ils sont également tenus d'obtenir de leurs clients le consentement exprès à l'égard de ces limites.

501              De plus, le Conseil a également établi certaines obligations qui visent à déterminer l'endroit où se trouve la personne qui appelle le 9‑1‑1 en se servant du service VOIP local mobile.

502              Est‑ce que vous avez des commentai9res à faire concernant ces mesures puis est‑ce que ces mesures sont adéquates pour les personnes handicapées?

503              M. RACICOT:  Votre question est très longue...

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

504              M. RACICOT:  J'aimerais ça que vous la reprécisiez par sections, parce que...

505              Ce que je comprends ‑‑ et là, vous me préciserez ‑‑ ce que je comprends, c'est que vous me posez une question en rapport avec la détermination de l'endroit de l'appel et de l'obligation de le faire?

506              MME LEHOUX:  En fait, c'est que ce qui s'est produit avec le service VOIP, c'est que lorsqu'il y a un appel qui était logé, on ne pouvait pas déterminer d'où venait l'appel sans que la personne qui faisait l'appel donne ses coordonnées.  Donc, ce qui arrive, c'est que des fois, le service coupe.  Ça fait que si le service coupe, bien, à ce moment‑là, on n'a pas... l'opératrice qui répond à l'appel n'a pas la coordonnée géographique de la personne.

507              Donc, pour faire face à ça, le Conseil a mis des mesures en places.  Et, comme j'ai dit, ces mesures en place, bon bien, je ne les répéterai pas nécessairement, mais c'est des mesures qui aident, justement.  Mais on voulait savoir si ces mesures‑là étaient utiles pour vous.

508              M. RACICOT:  C'est‑à‑dire que toute mesure qui va permettre, par exemple, au service d'urgence d'être efficace et de permettre la transmission du message, on ne peut pas être contre.  Ce que nous avons comme réserve c'est:  le fait que les personnes handicapées (dans le cas de notre... nous autres, les personnes vivant avec une surdité) puissent être pénalisées en fonction de ça.

509              Et toute la question, c'est:  On n'est pas encore capable de répondre avec exactitude à cette question‑là.  Est‑ce que les personnes pourraient être pénalisées?  Et c'est ça qui nous fait hésiter un peu à répondre.

510              Mais s'il faut que la personne soit enregistrée...

511              Parce qu'actuellement, je vous donne un exemple, pour que la personne puisse bénéficier d'une réduction de ses tarifs interurbains comme personne vivant avec une surdité, elle doit être enregistrée.

512              Donc, on n'a pas d'objection à ce que la personne soit enregistrée comme telle dans ce cas‑là.  C'est: jusqu'où la personne pourrait être pénalisée.  Et c'est cette question‑là qu'on n'est pas certain.  Est‑ce que malgré les notions de confidentialité, malgré les notions de professionnalisme, est‑ce que...?

513              On le sait, il y a des listes qui circulent, il y a toutes sortes d'utilisation possibles qui peuvent être faites et comment est‑ce qu'on peut faire respecter ça?

514              C'est notre interrogation par rapport à ça:  Jusqu'à quel point on pourrait avoir la certitude que la confidentialité est respectée et jusqu'à quel point vous pouvez en avoir la certitude, que le service respecte le professionnalisme comme tel auquel il est dû.  J'aimerais vous répondre avec certitude à cette question‑là, mais vous voyez la limitation de mes interrogations.

515              MME LEHOUX:  On était plus préocc... ‑‑  En fait, merci beaucoup pour votre réponse, mais on était plus préoccupé par le fait qu'on veut s'assurer aussi que les consommateurs soient bien avisés s'il y a une faille à la ‑‑ de fois, la technologie, tu sais, des fois les lignes coupent.

516              Alors, on veut juste s'assurer d'avoir les bons moyens en place pour que les personnes qui... les personnes sourdes ou malentendantes aient la possibilité d'être avisées de ces limites‑là avec la technologie qu'ils vont utiliser.

517              Donc, c'était plus à ce niveau‑là, la raison pour laquelle je posais ma question.

518              MME THERRIEN:  Est‑ce que je peux juste compléter?

519              Lorsque vous parlez d'aviser des limites avant la signature du contrat de service, pour nous, notre... aussi, une inquiétude, c'est:  Comment expliquer... comment les compagnies ou les entreprises expliqueront aux personnes sourdes gestuelles tout le contenu de ces contrats de service‑là qui sont souvent bien complexe?

520              Alors, pour leur permettre de signer quelque chose de manière éclairée...  Alors, pour nous, on revient avec la nécessité de l'interprétariat et des documents adaptés et tout ça.

521              À partir de ce moment‑là, si nous sommes certains que la personne comprend ce qu'elle signe, j'adhère... je poursuis dans le même sens que monsieur Racicot.  S'il y a des avantages, on n'y voit pas d'inconvénient.

522              MME LEHOUX:  Je vous remercie.  J'ai une dernière petite question à vous poser.

523              Est‑ce que vous pourriez nous donner des exemples de forfaits de services qui comprendraient seulement des services qui sont accessibles aux personnes vivant avec une surdité et que vous aimeriez voir le jour?  Donc, on parle d'une offre de services comme telle.  Est‑ce que vous pourriez nous donner un exemple?

524              M. RACICOT:  On en parlait un petit peu tout à l'heure, puis je reviens là‑dessus.  Et je donnais l'exemple de mon garçon qui utilise ce type de technologie‑là.  Mon garçon utilise maintenant sa * Webcam +, qu'on appelle, c'est‑à‑dire sa caméra vidéo comme téléphone

525              Mais ce que je me suis aperçu, c'est que ce téléphone vidéo consomme de la bande passante.  Et cette bande passante‑là m'est chargée à un coût supplémentaire, si je dépasse une certaine limite de bande passante.

526              Dans les faits, mon garçon utilise sa caméra vidéo comme téléphone régulier, c'est‑à‑dire qu'il le prend comme étant le service dont je paye à tous les mois, exemple, 25 $.  Mais maintenant, au lieu d'avoir une téléphonie locale, d'avoir un service régulier local, je dois en plus payer de la bande passante qui s'ajoute, finalement, à mon prix initial de téléphonie locale.  Est‑ce que je me fais bien comprendre?

527              Alors, à ce moment‑là, je me retrouve avec une facture qui, au lieu d'être, exemple:  25 $ pour mon service d'appels régulier qui serait le mien s'il n'y avait pas de problème de surdité, je me retrouve avec une facture de 35 $, 40 $, 45 $, dépendant de l'utilisation de sa bande passante.  Et il n'a fait que des appels locaux.

528              Alors, si moi, j'utilisais ‑‑ et lui ‑‑ nous utilisions notre service d'appel local 24 heures par jour, 30 jours par mois, ça nous coûterait 25 $.  Mais si lui l'utilise 24 heures par jour, 7 jours par semaine (ou 30 jours par mois), ça va nous coûter 150 $.  Et pourtant, on utilise le même service, la technologie seulement a changé.  Mais pourtant, c'est le même service d'appel local et régulier.

529              Alors, pourquoi est‑ce que le fait qu'il soit gestuel et qu'il communique en images vidéos devra nous coûter plus cher qu'une personne qui utilise la voix.  Alors, qu'est‑ce qu'on pourrait...?

530              Je vous donne...  Est‑ce qu'on pourrait jumeler ces services‑là?  Est‑ce qu'on pourrait adapter les coûts à ce service‑là?  Question qui fait appel à l'émergence de la nouvelle technologie vidéo, dont on n'a pas vraiment discuté encore, et qui s'adresse, finalement, à tous les fournisseurs Internet comme tels.

531              MME LEHOUX:  Merci beaucoup.

532              LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci.  Je voudrais remercier le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive.

533              We will now break for lunch and reconveine at 1:15.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 1202 / Upon recessing at 1202

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1315 / Reprise à 1315

534              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.  We will commence this afternoon's session.

535              Madam Secretary...?

536              THE SECRETARY:  Yes.  We will begin our third presentation with Rothschild & Co. Ltd.  Please introduce yourself and you will have 15 minutes for your presentation.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

537              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Thank you.

538              Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon.  My name is Eric Rothschild.  I am the owner and President of Rothschild & Co.  With me today is John Stubbs, an old friend and the owner of Stubbs Solutions.

539              It is a pleasure to be with you today.  No doubt there is a broad range of issues that will be explored over the course of the hearing and we have already heard some of that this morning.  For our part, John and I will focus on described video.

540              John and I have worked on access issues for Canadians with vision disabilities for the past decade; me as an advisor to the National Broadcast Reading Service and La Magnétothèque; John as a Manager at NBRS and at AudioVision Canada, which was Canada's first described video production house.

541              John and I each have over 30 years' experience in the broadcasting industry, hence the abundance of grey hair.  We have worked in all aspects of television and radio, news, production, management, regulatory affairs, consulting.  We have built stations, including one of the world's first all digital television stations.

542              Today, in addition to my consulting practice, I am a partner in an independent ISP and a partner in an independent production company producing content for distribution over the web.

543              One thing that has been consistent throughout both our careers is that we have reputations for coming up with creative solutions, for thinking outside the box, and certainly resolving access issues demands creative solutions.

544              We felt compelled to participate in these proceedings because we know the means exist to make described video available.  It isn't complicated.  It doesn't need to be expensive.  It can happen right now.

545              It's a question of whether we have the resolve to make it happen.

546              Today we would like to speak to the six recommendations we made in our written submission.

547              Our first recommendation was that each Canadian program broadcast by over the air and analog specialty stations that would be made more accessible if it were described should be described.  There is no need to describe play by play sports or newscasts or talk shows like The hour or CityLine, or morning shows like Canada AM, or music videos.  They are already quite accessible.  Just about everything else should be described.

548              Now, the CAB intervention said cost is the number one issue with description.  They said it's too expensive.  Let's look at the cost side of description.

549              In 2000 it cost $5,000 to describe an hour of described programming.  Today it cost $1,500.  That is a direct result of the Commission imposing description obligations.  That led to a competitive market.

550              In going forward, prices could come down much more.

551              The CAB estimates 21 hours per week of described programs were broadcast last year on over the air stations.  That comes to just under 1,100 hours.  Half those hours were repeats.  That means OTA stations commissioned about 550 original hours last year.

552              At $1,500 an hour, 550 hours of described programs means a total description market in Canada last year was about $825,000.  Well, that's barely enough revenue to support even one company, yet there at least four players competing for those description dollars.

553              What it means is that description is a cottage industry.  No one company produces in volume.  Every show is a one‑off.  It is the most expensive way to produce anything.  Cars, computers, appliances, it's all the same, including described programs.  If there is no volume, it is expensive.  That's why it cost $1,500 an hour.

554              If we want to bring down the cost, we need to produce in volume.  We need to produce more described programs.

555              But even at $1,500 it can be argued that description is affordable.  $1,500 is a fraction of 1 per cent of the budget of a one‑hour drama.  Even with factual programs, $1,500 is less than 1 per cent of a typical one‑hour budget.

556              Let's try and put cost into the bigger picture.

557              The Commission's most recent communications monitoring report shows that in 2007 CTV Toronto broadcast 375 hours of priority programs.  CanWest Toronto broadcast 438 hours.  Assuming that there were no repeats, at $1,500 an hour it would have cost roughly $600,000 to describe every priority program on CTV.  The same for CanWest.

558              If there were repeats ‑‑ and we know there were ‑‑ it would have been even cheaper.

559              $600,000 is one‑fifth of one per cent of the $300 million the CMR says was spent on non‑news programs last year, a fifth of 1 per cent to describe every priority program.  The impact would have been huge, the cost not unreasonable.

560              Priority programs were the only programs where we could find specific numbers of hours of programs broadcast.  I'm sure that the Commission has the data to do a similar analysis based on all hours of Canadian programs broadcast or as a percentage of the total spend on Canadian programs, or as a percentage of the total hours and total spend on Canadian and foreign programs.

561              The bottom line is that in the context of overall program spending, even at $1,500 an hour, it can be argued that description is affordable.

562              As I said previously, it will only get cheaper as described programs are produced in volume.  Just like with captioning, the cost of which has dropped dramatically over the years.

563              John...?

564              MR. STUBBS:  Our second recommendation focused on awareness.  Today trying to find a described program is an exercise in frustration.  There is no mention of description in most TV listings.  There is no mention on the EPG, the Electronic Program Guide and there are virtually no on‑air announcements.

565              The CAB intervention says broadcasters and distributors are frustrated by the challenge of promoting awareness amongst people with vision disabilities.

566              Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, given that no one tells people that a program is described, how could we expect anyone to be aware?

567              There is a simple and cost‑effective solution:  tell people that a program is described.

568              We recommend that broadcasters should be required to put the description logo on the screen and make an audio announcement before each program they air that is described.  They should repeat the announcement at each commercial break.

569              Captioning announcements are a profit centre.  The same could happen with description announcements.  Tell vision impaired viewers that a program is described, make them aware.  They will respond.

570              Our third recommendation concerns the digital set‑top box.

571              The Commission will relieve a BDU of the obligation to distribute description in analog if they provide free digital set‑top boxes to the vision impaired.  The Commission's decision was a creative solution, but virtually no one knows that the set‑top boxes are available.  No one has told them.

572              That's why we recommend that BDUs be required to promote the fact that the free set‑top boxes are available.

573              One way to get the message out would be to advertise through voiceprint and the CNIB.

574              We also recommend that BDUs should use 5 per cent of the local avails on American cable services that are reserved for their use to promote the free set‑top boxes.  We realize that the Commission has announced a review of its policy on the use of local avails.  This may change the landscape, but until the policy does change we stand by this recommendation.

575              Tell people with vision disabilities that free set‑top boxes are available.  They will ask for them.

576              Eric...?

577              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Our fourth recommendation was that BDUs should train their customer service representatives in how to deal with vision impaired callers.  They should know about the free set‑top boxes.  They should be trained to tell callers how to access services like voiceprint or described video.

578              The CAB intervention says it's complicated because there are so many different models of set‑top boxes.  That's true, but surely it's reasonable to expect that each BDU can and should train its CSRs in how to use the features of the set‑top boxes that their employer distributes.

579              Surely they can and should be trained how to activate features like accessing the description soundtrack.  In fact, with some set‑top boxes it is my understanding the CSR can actually remotely access the digital set‑top box to activate those features.

580              Bottom line, better training could be part of the solution.

581              Our fifth recommendation concerns TV listings.  As John was saying, today it is virtually impossible to find out whether a program is described.  There is no on‑air announcement and is not mentioned in TV listings.

582              It seems reasonable to expect that BDUs should include whether a program is described in the Electronic Program Guide.

583              We also recommend the Commission should encourage broadcasters to include whether a program is described in TV listings.  Listings already include details like whether it's closed captioned, whether it's a new episode.  Surely they could mention description.

584              Our sixth recommendation is whether broadcasters should be required to log whether a program is aired with description.  I have to admit I recently learned that broadcasters are already expected to do this to show they are meeting their conditions of licence.  But perhaps it's not being done, because if it is being done why did the CAB intervention have to estimate the number of hours broadcast weekly.  It is sure to be part of the public record.

585              We recommend the number of hours described broadcast should be included in future CMRs and that way we will all know what progress is being made.

586              We would like to close with two more observations on the intervention filed by the CAB.

587              It raises concerns about the amount of bandwidth that we require to distribute the description soundtrack.  It warns that bandwidth is finite.

588              Mr. Chairman, it has always been my understanding that serving those with disabilities is an obligation subject only to resources or technology being available.  No one disputes that the technology is available.  In fact, it is already in place.

589              There is no merit to the argument that bandwidth constraints are a real obstacle to the distribution of described programs or the argument that cost is a real obstacle.  The Commission shouldn't have to decide which types of programs are important enough to require description.

590              That's why we recommend that going forward all Canadian programs should be described and the Commission should demand that the required bandwidth be made available.

591              One final comment on the CAB intervention.

592              It refers to the fact that the U.S. court struck down the FCC requirement for the broadcast of described programs.  That's true.  What the intervention failed to mention is that legislation was introduced in June 2008 to reinstate the original FCC rules.  In fact, the new legislation went further than the FCC.  It required that remote control devices have a single button activation for closed captioning and described video within 18 months of passage of the legislation.

593              The Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology is the lead organization behind this American measure.  They tell us that the legislation will be before Congress early in 2009.  Passage of this legislation should resolve concerns raised by the CAB about the availability of described American programs.  It would also deal with the concerns about set‑top boxes and remote control devices.

594              Mr. Chairman, Canada has a long and great tradition of recognizing and proactively addressing the needs and rights of those with disabilities.  Canadian broadcasters have always done their part on screen and off screen.  The CRTC has provided important leadership.  It is thanks to the Commission that Canada has reading services and described television programming for those with vision disabilities.

595              No one disputes that the means and mechanisms exist to describe and distribute Canadian programs.  Canadians with vision disabilities will be delighted when popular American programs are broadcast with description, and it looks like that will happen soon.

596              In the meantime, we recommend that the Commission and Canadian broadcasters should focus on what we can control, and what we can control is the description and distribution of Canadian programs and promotion of those programs.

597              Perhaps you remember the movie Field of Dreams:  if you build it, they will come.

598              Mr. Chairman, this is the Field of Dreams for the vision impaired.  If you describe it, they will watch.

599              Thank you for this opportunity to share our views and we would be pleased to try and answer any questions you might have.

600              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much, Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Stubbs, for your presentation.

601              I have several questions to ask of you.

602              What I wanted to do, I think, is get a better understanding of your proposal, your recommendations, because you emphasize the words Canadian programming both in your submission of July 23rd and your submission this morning.

603              Are you saying that you would like to see the CRTC look favourably upon a decision that would limit the described video to Canadian programming?

604              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not proposing that you limit anything to Canadian programming, but I think that Canadian programming is what you can control.  We can't control whether Americans or any foreign country describes its programs and we can control whether Canadian programs are described.  You can say that they have to be described.

605              The American programs, if I use that as an example, it's our understanding that many American programs arrive here, first‑run programs, literally as they go to air with no advance ‑‑ they are not delivered in advance with sufficient time for Canadian broadcasters to have them described.

606              Fair enough.  Perhaps we have to wait on those foreign programs, or at least the first‑run foreign programs, to arrive with description for the other countries to act.

607              I think you have encouraged Canadian broadcasters to acquire described versions of foreign programs whenever possible.  I think that is a great thing and that should continue.  You have also told them that they are obligated to do certain minimums for over the airs and some of the specialties of Canadian programs that need to be described and, on a going forward basis, you can continue that.  You have the authority to do that.

608              I don't think any of us have the authority to order the Americans or any other foreign producers to describe their programs.

609              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  I recognize your position that the price per hour would come down with more volume but let's, for the time being, assume that the rates are what they are.

610              Have you taken your suggestion here and extended it out to see what the total cost to the system would be if we took just Canadian programming and added on not just those genres that are there today, but the other genres as well and what that would mean to the system?

611              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  I wish I could say I have, Mr. Chairman.  I attempted to get those statistics from the Commission in preparation for the hearing, but unfortunately that level of detailed information is not available.  That's why in our presentation in‑chief we suggest the Commission has that data and certainly you have the analysts who can do that, to do that equation.

612              I can give you ‑‑ you know, all I can give you is an estimate of what I think it probably is, but the Commission has the actual number of hours.

613              THE CHAIRPERSON:  I would be interested in your estimate.

614              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Well, John and I have talked about this many times as we prepared for today, hoping you wouldn't ask us that question.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

615              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  The best I can do, Mr. Chairman, is to say if the typical broadcast week is something in the order of 128 hours, and if we figure roughly half of that is Canadian, so that takes us down to about 64, and then you say well, how much is news or sports programming ‑‑ because we are talking now about a CTV, a CanWest, a Rogers, all of whom have extensive news programming and extensive play‑by‑play sports.

616              Let's say half of it, maybe 25 hours a week roughly is perhaps what we're talking about describing.  So what would that cost?  I figure maybe $1 million a year per network.

617              So $1 million a year perhaps for the entire CTV network, $1 million a year for the entire CanWest network.

618              That's as close as I can come to without knowing the actual statistical data that the Commission might have.  But I look at it and I say it's about $1 million or even more spread across ‑‑ again, you have the figures that I don't have against what is the total program spend, what is the total revenue.

619              It doesn't sound like a lot of money against what I expect them to be doing.

620              THE CHAIRPERSON:  When you do your math, have you included the specialty programs, the Canadian specialty programs as well that are owned by the conventional broadcasters or are you limiting yourself just to the conventional over the air broadcasters?

621              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Everything I have been discussing to this point has been in reference to conventional over the air channels.

622              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  Now let's get back to the $1,500 and volume may get prices down.

623              Are you aware of any other technologies that might be on the horizon that would actually leapfrog the pricing of described video beyond just volume related benefits?

624              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  My associate Mr. Stubbs is going to give you the answer that I told him we probably didn't want to put onto the record, which is about voice synthesis.

625              There is technology available where the description could be done with a voice synthesizer and obviously that would make things ‑‑ it means all we would have to do is write a script and then produce ‑‑ the voice could be done without paying a talent fee.

626              John...?

627              MR. STUBBS:  Right now the way description is produced is a writer will sit down with their copy of the program, will write a script with the narration.  It will then be passed on to a technician and a narrator, an announcer and then the whole program will be put together.  So you are dealing with quite a number of people.

628              The advancements that have been made ‑‑ there is a program called CapScribe which is a desktop tool to actually have one person do the entire process on a regular Macintosh desktop computer.  And not only ‑‑ the person could actually describe it themselves using their own voice or it also has the built‑in ability to use voice synthesis and put that in.

629              So it really streamlines the process in an incredible way.

630              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, it's not like we are saying that's the way description should go.  We are saying that there are technologies like this available today that can be used, and it will be up to the marketplace to decide whether they feel it's appropriate.

631              I mean the marketplace may say well, description has greater value to them if it is done by a human being because it's something that helps them with, for instance, DVD sales and it's another feature that can be added to DVD sales to make it more marketable.

632              I don't know, but there are alternatives.

633              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Can you tell us where these voice synthesizers are being used today?

634              MR. STUBBS:  In screen readers.  When a person with vision disabilities uses a computer, they use big synthesis.  Many talking books are available with that.  A Mac laptop computer these days comes with that and you can have it read Word documents, any kind of document that you have on a Mac.

635              THE CHAIRPERSON:  To your knowledge, has it been trialed at all in a broadcasting milieu at all?

636              MR. STUBBS:  I don't believe so.  I know I've used it on broadcast programs only as an exercise for myself, but I don't believe any programs using that have been broadcast.

637              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  That's specifically why we are not sitting here saying here is the solution to the problem, here is what is going to bring the price down.  We think the volume is a much more natural, much more obvious way that prices will come down.

638              I don't know if the marketplace is ready for synthesized voice.

639              THE CHAIRPERSON:  I'm sure my colleague, Commissioner Lamarre, will ask this question, but I will go first.

640              Does this synthesis that is being used right now, these synthesizers, work equally in both official languages in Canada?

641              MR. STUBBS:  Yes.  There is no problem with either one.

642              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  We currently have a formula for the use of described video for certain genres and there has been requests to go beyond the basic genres that are there today.

643              Can you perhaps give us your expertise and knowledge as to which other genres would lend themselves readily to described video beyond the ones that we have currently identified?

644              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Mr. Chairman, I think that the ones that you have already identified, you know, are key genres, although given that the statistics show the overwhelming number of Canadians with vision disabilities tend to be older, it was ‑‑ who is really benefiting from the children's program being described, the number of Canadians, is questionable, quite frankly.

645              But certainly with the other genres that you have, they are the ones that should be described.

646              Then if I just go through the program categories beyond that, you know in formal education, recreation and leisure could also benefit from description in some forms, and certainly there may be cases of variety programs or general entertainment as human interest that could benefit from it.

647              I think that it comes to what we were talking about both in our written presentation and our presentation today.  It's hard to understand where the benefit would be to allow description to qualify as meeting their obligations for news or play‑by‑play sports.

648              Now, I know this morning there was discussion about the fact with the CNIB, about wanting to hear stock prices during newscasts.  And absolutely there would be a benefit for that and the Commission has talked about that in previous decisions.  It has talked about it as audio description and has encouraged broadcasters, television broadcasters, to have audio description when they put graphics on the screen.

649              Certainly that would be a major benefit to news, play‑by‑play sports, if there was audio description.  But that is not the same as described video which we are talking about here today.

650              Certainly it would be hard to see that the objective of making the system more accessible would be met by allowing, for instance, news or play‑by‑play sports or talk shows or music video clips and the type of things I talked about in the presentation in‑chief to qualify as categories.

651              It really comes down, Mr. Chairman, to will description make the program more accessible?

652              If the broadcaster feels that a program won't be made more accessible with description, fine.  Then they can come in and make that argument.

653              Otherwise, why not describe it?

654              THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will be asking the BDUs to tell us how many of these free set‑top boxes have gone out there.  But do you know at all offhand to what extent this has actually infiltrated the marketplace?

655              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  I don't know anybody that's aware of them, Mr. Chairman.

656              I believe, John, you called to try to get one and nobody could tell us ‑‑ the program wasn't being implemented yet.

657              MR. STUBBS:  The CSR that I spoke to wasn't aware that there were free set‑top boxes available.

658              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.

659              Mr. Stubbs, in your evidence you talked about a study in 2006 whereby only 26 per cent of described programs were distributed.  That was a 2006 study.

660              Have you had a chance to polish that study up or review it at all?

661              MR. STUBBS:  I haven't done another study but I have ‑‑ I am a fan of described video.  I enjoy listening to it.

662              In the exercise of trying to pick it up, it has definitely been more available.

663              The difference has changed in that prior to this time at least they would announce when a program was described.  Now there seems to be a lack of announcements so it's harder to find it.

664              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Also what we found ‑‑ and again, we didn't do another study in preparation for the hearing, but we did over the past number of weeks do some monitoring to try to see well, is it out there?

665              It is out there but it was much harder to find than it was in 2006 because it seems to be less prominent in ‑‑ at least two years ago you seemed to be able to find it in listings.  Now you can't.

666              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is it not odd that the industry has gone to the trouble to describe video, albeit not to the extent that people want, and yet they are not marketing it or promoting it at all?  They are spending the money.

667              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  I would agree, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure that you'll have a chance to talk about that with the CAB and its panel when it comes up here.  There are representatives of all the major players there.

668              I don't understand it and, quite frankly, that is why we are here.  We came here ‑‑ there is nothing in this for John and I other than we think that these are interests of public interest that should be discussed and out in the open like this, because we don't understand it.

669              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Have you been involved at all in consultations with the various broadcasters or CAB in this regard at all?

670              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  No, we have not.  I mean, we have been involved ‑‑ I do ongoing work with the national broadcast reading service and give them advice, but with other broadcasters, no.

671              I have, upon occasion, volunteered my services to the CAB.  They have never taken me up on the offer.

672              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is the National Broadcast Radio Services a member of CAB?

673              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  I believe they are, as is my company.

674              THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you would be involved in any of their activities or consultations that take place and you have never seen fit to inject yourself into the process?

675              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  I have never been invited to be part of the process, Mr. Chairman.

676              THE CHAIRPERSON:  Those are all my questions.

677              My fellow Commissioners?

678              Commissioner Lamarre has a question.

679              COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

680              I wanted to follow up.  You have identified, as well as increasing the amounts of described video, a lot of the other challenges with accessing the described video that is there today, just as the conversation just went on about awareness and promotion.

681              One of the things that interested me in your comments was your reference to some of the limitations of set‑top boxes and remotes.

682              What I would like to understand, and truly understand because the record gives little pieces here and there, is from your experience ‑‑ you said you are users of described video and you are also active in the areas of described video.

683              Assuming you know that a program is going to be aired in described video, how difficult would it be for a person with a disability to be able to actually functionally get there?

684              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Commissioner, thanks to the Commission's decision to allow the deployment of the digital set‑top boxes, we have taken a major leap forward in being able to access the described soundtrack, because the digital set‑top boxes allow you to access ‑‑ there are a couple of buttons that need to be pressed and you can activate the SAP.

685              It used to be that every brand of television was different, and it was all over the map, but now, because of the Commission's decision to allow the cable operators to deploy the set‑top boxes, with Rogers you have a standard type of box, and similarly with the other BDUs.

686              In fact, you can call the CSR and they can tell you how to access that quite readily.

687              It is still a challenge, if you are completely blind, to see the buttons.  It is not a perfect solution.  The perfect solution is open description, which The Accessible Channel will offer, or which you find on ExpressVu.  They have the virtual channels with open description.

688              That is the easiest for a person with a vision disability to access, open description.

689              The digital set‑top boxes have been a leap forward because now there is consistency in terms of the process to get there.  A CSR can help you, and as I said in the presentation‑in‑chief, if you call for assistance to your cable operator, in many cases they can actually remotely activate it for you.

690              But it is still not a perfect solution.  It is not a one‑button solution.

691              John spent a long time in the analog world developing a one‑button remote to access the SAP, and the legislation in the United States that we were referring to talks about making it simpler, both for captioning and for description, to have a one‑botton solution.

692              That is a very long‑winded answer, Commissioner, I'm sorry.

693              It's a lot easier today ‑‑ it's a lot better today than it was two or three years ago, before the digital set‑top box decision, and when every television set was different.

694              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.  I take your point that it's better.

695              On the record I read some indications, for example, that every time you turn a station, if you were to change channels, you are back through it.  I don't expect that you want to call the CSR every time you want to turn a channel.

696              Or, for example, in a household, which I believe is quite common, where you have a household of people that are ‑‑ you know, not everybody is lacking sight, so you are sharing it and, once again, you can't turn it to that and have it there forever.

697              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Commissioner, if this is my opportunity to share with you what I think would be a better solution, I think that a better solution might be to say that, for instance, the cable operator should have a standard CTV/Canwest/Rogers or CBC feed ‑‑ the standard feed, and they should also have an alternate feed with open description, and that could be simulcast at the same time as the standard feed.

698              It would be similar to what ExpressVu has done with having virtual channels, but this would actually be at the same time as the normal CTV feed in Toronto is being fed to Toronto area customers ‑‑ you could have a CTV version and an alternate version with open description.

699              That would be one way to handle the main four conventional signals in a marketplace.

700              With speciality, if you wanted to do it, you could say to the specialty stations ‑‑ most of them are on a six‑hour wheel ‑‑ say that one of the wheel plays should be a play with open description.

701              That is just a setting in the video server for when it plays out.

702              It wouldn't cost anything extra to the broadcaster to do this.  It would mean that there would be open description for the four main over‑the‑air networks.  It would mean that there would be an open play per day for the specialties.  There is an alternative.

703              Another alternative is what we have talked about with having to manipulate ‑‑ to make your way through the set‑top box remote control.  Though it is much better than it used to be, as we said, it is not a perfect solution.

704              Or, call a customer service representative.  But, again, it's not a perfect solution.

705              I would argue that it's an evolutionary process, but the idea of having an alternate version of the main four networks would certainly help to resolve this in a major way.

706              I know that the Commission's decision on BDU regs ‑‑ you were talking about eliminating the mirroring, the obligation to mirror the analog in digital.  There are going to be a lot of channels freed up; perhaps four could be dedicated to an alternate version with open description for the four main networks.

707              All we are trying to do is offer some creative solutions, Commissioner, they are not perfect solutions.

708              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you for that.  I have just one more question on it.

709              You referenced the legislation in the States and your expectation that, should that pass, the result would be some resolution, I guess, by equipment manufacturers of these problems.

710              Is that what you meant by that?

711              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  I did.

712              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  So is that an option, as well?

713              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Absolutely, and thank you for making sure that I got that back on the record.

714              Absolutely, that is definitely another step toward resolving it.

715              But, again, it will be an evolution, because we know that BDUs have quite an investment in the current generation of set‑top boxes.  So it will be an evolution to the next generation of set‑top boxes.

716              I think, again, it needs creative thinking to come up with measures that get us through, as we evolve toward a time when the set‑top boxes have resolved the issue, toward a time when American broadcasters are producing first‑run programming with description, to when other foreign programming is available with description.

717              We have to move forward.  That's why I come back to saying that the one thing we can control are Canadian programs and the promotion of those programs.

718              COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you,  those are my questions.

719              THE CHAIRPERSON:  I look forward to hearing the response from the industry to your proposal this afternoon.

720              Commissioner Lamarre.

721              COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

722              First off, you talked about four competing players, as far as producing descriptive video is concerned.  Is that for the English market only, or are you including producers in the French market?

723              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  I was referring to the English‑language market, Commissioner.

724              COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  So the comparison regarding the expenses, based on the $1,500 per hour rate, is for the English market also.

725              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  My understanding is that some of the ‑‑ at least two of the four that I talked about are prepared and willing to produce in French, and at those rates.

726              You would have to talk to them about that to confirm that, but that's my understanding.

727              COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  If I understand correctly, your consulting effort, as far as descriptive video is concerned, is mainly targeted at the English market in Canada, so far.

728              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  That's correct, Commissioner.

729              COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Are you aware of an equivalent French Stubbs/Rotschild pair somewhere in Quebec?

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

730              MR. ROTSCHILD:  No, we are not.

731              COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  You are not.  Okay.

732              Now, my next question ‑‑ I am not sure that it's a fair question to ask you, so don't be shy to tell me if you think I shouldn't be asking it.

733              You referenced the one‑botton remote for descriptive video ‑‑ and, Mr. Stubbs, you were actually working on it at some point, so maybe it is a fair question.

734              I do make note ‑‑ and thank you for providing the information about the legislation in the U.S., but, quite frankly, I am not sure that I want to bet my money on U.S. legislation.

735              Let's assume for the moment that this legislation will not go through and that we are faced with the current situation.  What I am wondering is, in your experience in exchanges with equipment providers, what is the issue about getting a remote with just this one button for descriptive video?

736              I realize that a lot of people often talk about the fact that the Canadian market is smaller than the U.S. market.  Agreed.  But, at the same time, the Norwegian market is much smaller than the U.K. market; nonetheless, you can find in Norwegia equipment that has Norwegian specified features.

737              Do you have a sense of how much the number really is an issue, or is it just an issue of stating the requirement in an RFP, and, basically, boldly asking for it?

738              MR. ROTHSCHILD:  Commissioner, it is a difficult question for us to answer.  I take your point, it seems that there are smaller markets that can specify their needs and have equipment developed to meet their needs.

739              That said, and I said it again in the presentation‑in‑chief, it's a question of resolve.  If someone tells BDUs here that they need to make that part of the specifications, then they can probably make it happen.

740              But, clearly, there hasn't been sufficient demand on a worldwide basis to see it happen anywhere to date.

741              We haven't seen it anywhere.  It's not just Canada, it's anywhere.

742              Perhaps I am more of an optimist than you, Commissioner, but I am optimistic that in the United States we will see some progress.  I take heart in the fact that the legislation was originally introduced during the Bush era, and now we move into a different era, where we think there may be more receptiveness to that type of social legislation and that it is going forward.

743              Let's hope that if the Americans do it, then it will prime the pump and there will be a volume demand on a global basis, and we will certainly have it here in Canada.

744              But if it's within the Commission's jurisdiction to tell BDUs that they should make it part of their parameters, that could be another part of the process to make it happen.

745              COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Okay.  Thank you for your response.

746              And I stand corrected, I should have said "Norway", not "Norwegia".  Sorry about that.

74