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 18, 2008                     Le 18 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 18, 2008                 Le 18 novembre 2008

- iv -

           TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                 PAGE / PARA

PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:

Neil Squire Society                               319 / 1734

Chris and Jeff Stark                              387 / 2107

Canadian Association of the Deaf                  424 / 2351

Henry Vlug                                        435 / 2406

TELUS Communications                              483 / 2717

Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians          586 / 3368

Gatineau, Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ Upon resuming on Tuesday, November 18, 2008

    at 0903 / L'audience reprend le mardi 18 novembre

    2008 à 0903

1722             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the second day of this hearing.

1723             I will pass it on to the Secretary for any preliminary remarks and introductions.

1724             THE SECRETARY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1725             Bonjour à tous.  Good morning everyone.

1726             For the benefit of those who were not in the room yesterday, I would like to go over a few housekeeping matters.

1727             I would like to remind everyone that when you are in the hearing room, we ask that you completely turn off, and not leave on vibration mode, your cell phones and BlackBerrys, as they cause interference on the internal communications systems used by our translators and interpreters.

1728             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.

1729             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.

1730             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.

1731             For ease of reference, I will name the panel members, from left to right:  Elizabeth Duncan, Timothy Denton, Suzanne Lamarre, Leonard Katz, Candice Molnar, and Stephan Simpson.

1732             I would now call on our first participant, the Neil Squire Society.

1733             Please introduce yourselves for the record.  You will then have 15 minutes for your presentation.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

1734             MR. BIRCH:  Thank you very much.

1735             Good morning.  My name is Gary Birch, and I am the Executive Director of the Neil Squire Society.

1736             Along with me today is Harry Lew, Manager of Research and Development for the Neil Squire Society.

1737             I would like to begin by thanking the Commission for inviting me to speak today, and for the recognition of the critical issues related to persons with disabilities by initiating these hearings.

1738             I see that this is a good start, which I hope will represent the first step in an important process that will achieve equality of access to telecommunications services for all Canadians.

1739             The Neil Squire Society is a Canadian not‑for‑profit organization whose mission is to enable people with significant physical disabilities to achieve great independence through the development, adaptation and use of innovative services and technology for the home and workplace.

1740             Our primary target group is those with mobility and agility impairments.

1741             Since its inception in 1984, the Society has opened doors to independence for over 20,000 Canadians with physical disabilities.

1742             The Neil Squire Society is unique, as it is one of the few not‑for‑profit, community‑based organizations that maintains an active research and development group.

1743             The Society's greater mandate is to use technology to help these individuals fully participate in the activities of society, such as living independently, going to school, and holding meaningful employment.

1744             Due to its unique combination of technical capacity and close affiliation and interaction with the disability community, the Neil Squire Society works actively with industry to inform them of the issues that affect persons with disabilities with regards to emerging technologies.

1745             One of our key areas of focus is to carry out initiatives that will help to make new and existing technologies in the area of information and communication technologies accessible, and improve their usability and accessibility.

1746             Ideally, we would like to make them accessible from the earliest stages of development, to eliminate the accessibility gap.

1747             We are pleased that the CRTC is having these hearings, as the CRTC is the most appropriate body, with the mandate, responsibility and potential mechanisms to take real action to address the issues that I and others will raise during these proceedings.

1748             Canada is lagging way behind many other jurisdictions around the world in terms of addressing the issues of access to telecommunications, particularly emerging technologies for persons with disabilities.

1749             For example, this is demonstrated in the fact that our related industries are the slowest to adopt next‑generation services, such as video relay and speech‑to‑speech services, and in the lack of regulations in Canada that are supported by other jurisdictions, such as the requirement for hearing aid compatibility on cell phones.

1750             The key issues that I would like to emphasize this morning are as follows:

1751             Accessibility of wireless hand‑held platforms:

1752             The nature of the relationship between Canadian consumers and the telecom service providers has changed dramatically.  Less than 10 years ago, telecom service providers were focused on developing long‑term relationships with consumers by delivering a single, stable, voice product to consumers.  Today the telecom service providers are driven more so by innovation and are focused on attracting customers to next‑generation services that will drive additional revenue.

1753             The result is that an intimate relationship has been created between the telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers.

1754             The telecom service providers cannot deliver new services without having the next‑generation features in the handsets.  Similarly, the handsets cannot access those services without the appropriate infrastructure being supported by the telecom service providers.

1755             So when we talk about accessibility to services provided by the telecom service providers, we cannot ignore the relationship between the telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers, and the role they play in getting handset manufacturers to create handsets appropriate for the needs of their customers.

1756             Accessibility of wireless hand‑held platforms ‑‑ cell phones, smart phones, PDAs, et cetera ‑‑ to persons with disabilities, and, in particular, in the case of persons with mobility impairment, means providing accessible input, control and mechanical functions, as well as accessible output, display and control functions, such that all of the services that are provided by the telecom service providers, all of the wireless networks, are usable by persons with disabilities.

1757             To achieve this end would involve a requirement on the telecom service providers to implement strict procurement requirements, which would create a significant pressure on handset manufacturers to require them to produce their technology in accessible formats.

1758             We envision, as a minimum, that this should result in a commitment regulated by the CRTC for telecom service providers to carry at least two or more accessible devices across all services provided, basic and advanced.

1759             Accessibility of the services provided by the telecom service providers is completely tied in with accessibility of the handsets.  The two cannot be separated.

1760             Persons with disabilities will not have equal access to telecommunications in Canada unless both the services and the platforms that they are provided on are accessible.

1761             The CRTC, therefore, must revisit the mechanisms available to them, to ensure that these procurement requirements are put into place.

1762             The telecom service providers have indicated to us that they are too small a market to make any difference.  This is not true.  Handset manufacturers are getting pressured by telecom service providers from many other major jurisdictions around the world, and Canada's telecom service providers should be aggressively adding their voice to this end.

1763             Also, although not always typical, there are examples where small market telecom service providers have had an important impact on handset manufacturers to produce platforms that meet special needs.

1764             As an example of a step in the right direction, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, has rules requiring telecom service providers to make their products and services accessible to persons with disabilities if this access is readily achievable.

1765             Where access is not readily achievable, Section 255 requires manufacturers and service providers to make their devices and services compatible with peripheral devices and special customer equipment that are commonly used by people with disabilities, if such compatibility is readily achievable.

1766             In fact, we have demonstrated ourselves at the Neil Squire Society that such solutions, on various commercially available platforms, are often technically readily achievable, but because of current business practices these solutions are not usually considered by the telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers.

1767             The point is, the problem is not often technical, it is the business practices involved.

1768             The important role of regulation:

1769             Despite the social responsibility of industry, the desire to help persons with disabilities does not translate into corporate policy or business decisions.

1770             There is a role for regulation, and most of the major strides in disability rights and inclusion in the last decade have come about due to regulations.

1771             It is important not to overlook the catalyst effect that regulation has on industry to deliver on their social contract.

1772             Other jurisdictions and global not‑for‑profit organizations that specialize in this area have recognized that regulation is the most effective means to address these issues.

1773             For more details, see the answers submitted by the Neil Squire Society to the CRTC on September 5th, 2008.

1774             We have often heard the argument from various industry stakeholders that market forces will address the issues of accessibility.  Over the past several years we have been working with industry, and although there has been some interest to work with us on solutions for persons with disabilities, it has become very clear to me that these market forces and social responsibilities play a very small role in their decision to get involved with these initiatives.

1775             The clear motivating force is regulation from other jurisdictions around the world that requires issues of accessibility to be addressed.  It is time for Canada to become one of those jurisdictions that recognizes this need and implements regulation, and no longer runs the risk of becoming the dumping ground of inaccessible technologies.

1776             Emergency services:

1777             In the recent past there have been many examples of emergency situations, both large‑scale and small‑scale, where the use of various wireless telecom devices and services has been instrumental in the saving of lives.

1778             In fact, many emergency service protocols are now integrating these types of devices and services into the core of their procedures.  For detailed examples, please, again, see the answers to questions submitted to the CRTC by the Neil Squire Society on September 5th, 2008.

1779             If these devices and services are not accessible, then persons with disabilities will be excluded from this extremely valuable form of receiving assistance in an emergency situation, often the very individuals who are most at risk.

1780             Therefore, this becomes the most compelling reason of all for the CRTC to take action to boldly implement various mechanisms, including regulation, as it has a clear responsibility to ensure that persons with disabilities have proper access to these devices in emergency situations.

1781             Employment:

1782             These new and emerging wireless telecom technologies and services that utilize the cellular networks and provide various business‑related services are also being adopted and integrated into the mainstream at a very rapid pace.

1783             Therefore, because these technologies and services are generally not accessible, this is becoming a serious issue for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the workforce.  Not only is this a barrier to persons with disabilities who are trying to enter the workforce, it is also a major threat to those who are already in the workforce and are not able to access this new technology as it becomes part of the standing operating procedures entrenched in business.

1784             Given that economic and social inclusion through employment is critical to many persons with disabilities, this is yet another important reason why it is essential that the CRTC take appropriate action.

1785             Ongoing consultation, market research and usability testing:

1786             The telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers cannot deliver appropriate accessible technology on their own.  We need to ensure that mechanisms are put in place, such that there is ongoing consultation with consumer groups representing persons with disabilities, related market research to identify gaps and usability, and accessibility testing that involves actual consumers with disabilities of the new and emerging technologies and services.

1787             The information resulting from these processes would be required to be fed back to the telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers, to continually improve the accessibility and usability of these emerging services and technologies.

1788             Currently there is no process in place to consult the disability community before new services, hardware and features are deployed by industry.

1789             We envision that this could be accomplished by a multi‑level engagement process, involving consumers with disabilities and the related consumer groups, as discussed above, along with key industry, government and other regulatory bodies, to change the nature of the technology to make it inherently accessible through the setting of standards, regulation and education.

1790             New and emerging technologies have the potential to enhance the lives of people with disabilities.  However, too often they become additional barriers and a form of exclusion because of their inaccessibility.

1791             It is important to be designing solutions for the next generation of services and devices, as well as the current ones which may be obsolete in a few months.  To accomplish this will take a coordinated effort by all stakeholders.

1792             The development of these multi‑level consultation processes becomes the next step that must be undertaken in a fashion that will involve the meaningful interaction of all stakeholders, which will result in effective mechanisms and appropriate regulations that should be a win‑win for all parties.

1793             Funding:

1794             Sufficient funding of community‑based groups working with persons with disabilities to work with the telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers is absolutely critical to enabling this community to be fully engaged in a range of processes designed to eliminate the accessibility gap.

1795             This would include a need for research to better understand the needs of persons with disabilities across the spectrum of disability, for the creation of standards, and the development of adaptive technology solutions, including research and experimentation.  It would also include the processes that I discussed earlier in regards to consultation.

1796             The funding required needs to be substantial to close the accessibility gap.  It needs to be permanent to meet this persistent need and to address problems effectively over the long term.

1797             There is no current source of funding for this type of work.  It is envisioned that funding could come from three potential sources ‑‑ government, industry, and the users in general.

1798             The first two sources are often looked towards for support and, indeed, mechanisms with these organizations should be pursued.

1799             However, the third potential source should be examined very closely.

1800             As Canadians, we have a strong social history of supporting the most marginalized, whether abroad or in our own communities.  This is a unique social value and a responsibility that is embraced by all Canadians.

1801             A user‑supported initiative could involve a mechanism whereby those who benefit from the use of these new and emerging telecom technologies and services would contribute to a fund, likely through a levy type of system, that would be designated to ensure that these technologies and services are designed to be inclusive for all consumers.

1802             Given the extremely large pool of users, the financial burden on any one user would be very small, almost unnoticeable.  There are examples of this already in the form of the levy that some Canadian carriers charge each of their subscribers to support relay services.

1803             In closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity once again, and I look forward to our question and answer period.

1804             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much, Mr. Birch.

1805             We will start the questioning with Commissioner Simpson.

1806             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Good morning. Thank you very much for your presentation, and thank you for helping us get a priority sense for the issues that you feel are important to Canadians with disabilities.

1807             I would like to start my questioning with respect to your first point, concerning the accessibility of wireless hand‑held platforms.

1808             Being from Vancouver, I am very familiar with your organization and its work.  To that extent, it has been my observation that you have a very strong sense of what is capable technologically, in terms of what is available in the marketplace.  So your observations I take very close to heart.

1809             The issue of the gap that exists right now in wireless hand‑held platforms, what would you say is the principal reason that issues of universal standards and goals toward closing that gap through the use of standards exists today, given the relatively high concentration of manufacturers?

1810             There are, ostensibly, half a dozen worldwide manufacturers of hand‑held platforms, and yet universal standards don't seem to be a priority with this group.

1811             What is the principal driver that is missing in terms of universal standardization?

1812             MR. BIRCH:  That is a great question.  I will take a stab at it, and Harry may have some input on it, as well.

1813             I believe that part of it is because technologies are changing so fast.  That is at the root of a lot of the issues that I brought up today.  It is the speed at which new technologies and services are being deployed.

1814             I think it is a highly competitive environment.  I believe that that is one of the reasons it has been hard to agree on certain standards because they all want to have their proprietary ways of input/output‑type scenarios with their devices.

1815             It is that very lack of standardization that actually makes dealing with these devices so difficult.  We have many examples where we develop a solution, an interface that will allow, say, a high‑level quadriplegic to use a device.  We just get it prototyped and working and then that device is off the market and their new device uses a new operating system or a different way of interacting with it so that our solution and all the work we put into it is for naught.

1816             So that's why it's so important, we need to change that paradigm and actually work with industry and help them design these devices such that we can make them accessible with a little effort.

1817             So your question on standards, I think that's the main reason, is that the technology is moving so quickly and there is a lot of competition between the manufacturers and they are not eager to standardize on these points.

1818             MR. LEW:  There is a lack of coordination between a lot of the national standard bodies.  So if you look at between North America, which is obviously the U.S., Canada and Europe and then Asia themselves, they all have their own standards, not necessarily ‑‑ they obviously don't all have standards in terms of accessibility.  In some cases they are guidelines as opposed to standards.

1819             But coordinating them and getting them to cooperate is something that Europe is starting to try to do to create sort of an international type of standard, but there are these jurisdictional things between nations that national standard bodies prefer to create their own standards and that hasn't changed in a significant way where there's an international standards body that is coordinating everything around accessibility.

1820             We haven't seen that type of agency and there is not a ‑‑ I don't think there is one international organization that represents disability issues right now.  They are still basically based in a specific country per se.  Right?

1821             So when they are bringing forward standards ‑‑ so if you are talking about United States, they tend to be more progressive mainly because there are significant lobby groups in the disability issues that are well coordinated and well‑funded to push those issues at that level, where if you look at Europe they are a little bit behind in terms of what's happening than the United States.

1822             If you look at Canada themselves, they tend to lag 10 years behind just standards in general that are involved in the telecommunications industry.  So it's just not disability issues, but it's emergency, enhanced emergency 9‑1‑1 facilities, those kinds of things, the newer types of technology.

1823             I think what you are seeing is just a lag and a certain amount of national barriers, for lack of a word, for lack of harmonization between standards.

1824             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  One of the challenges in a country looking at regulation to try and impose standards as opposed to other means of cooperation is to try and determine to the satisfaction of all concerned that there are very specific hardships, barriers, discriminatory barriers that are created by a lack of universal access.

1825             Is there any particular information that you can point us to that gives us a sense for whether you feel that there is a palpable level of discrimination?

1826             We know there are technological and physical barriers associated with the inability to access certain types of devices, but do you have a position on the issue of discrimination with respect to hardships that are coming as a result of the inability to use platforms now?

1827             MR. BIRCH:  I'm not sure I fully understand your question.  Are you looking for statistics or examples?

1828             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Well, sure.  I think the question that we are putting to all groups is to try and elevate the understanding beyond the cost issues and into issues that move more into not just quality of life issues but the real determination that that there are measurable implications to the barriers.

1829             MR. BIRCH:  Okay.  I don't think statistics exist to back this up, but I have some examples I will try to give you quickly.  I will keep my examples to people with mobility disabilities.

1830             A lot of colleagues here today at these hearings will be talking about other forms of disability that also run into the very serious forms of discrimination.  But yes, in my mind we run up against it every day.

1831             There is all ‑‑ there are folks with high‑level disabilities who cannot use the devices that the rest of their coworkers use in the workplace.  We have ‑‑ as an example, we have an MP right now in the House of Commons that cannot use his wireless device.  He needs to have his assistant use it for him.

1832             You know, people ‑‑ I, with my cell phone, I can use some of the basic functions, but to use some of the more advanced functions I can't with my fingers so I'm not able to ‑‑ I'm not allowed to use some of those services that my able‑bodied counterparts are.

1833             I'm trying to think of other ‑‑ but there are many instances where people are not able, where their able‑bodied counterparts would simply use the device to go shopping or to access their bank accounts or to call up their friends or whatever, those all become either very difficult to do or impossible to do because of the lack of accessibility.

1834             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Let's try and narrow this down for me a bit to the area of employability as a way to try and put some dialogue to the record with respect to that issue.

1835             So as I understand from your presentation and from the work that your group has been doing, one of the main identifiers that you have rested a lot of your Society's work on has been the ability to reintroduce people into the workplace as a result of access to and the development of new technology.

1836             MR. BIRCH:  Yes, that has been a key part of our work, yeah.

1837             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Is that a driver that brings about a renewed interest or a new interest to the TSPs and the manufacturers?

1838             I'm now starting to move into the area of work groups.  I know that you have been working, for example, was Nokia.

1839             MR. BIRCH:  Yes.

1840             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  As you go through the mechanisms to bring about opportunities for funding and projects that work collaboratively with telecommunications companies and manufacturers, what is the most effective proposition that you bring to the table that causes them to want to participate on your projects?

1841             MR. BIRCH:  Yes, I can answer that.

1842             Just before I do, I would like to go back to sort of the beginning of your question and it goes back to your first question about discrimination.

1843             In the workplace now it is becoming ‑‑ these are trends that we are seeing, but people are required to do e‑mail while they are away from the office.  I can't do my e‑mail effectively at all.  I couldn't even get on yesterday and then when I do get on, it's very, very ‑‑ it's almost not worth me even trying.

1844             Those are the kinds of trends we are seeing and it is becoming the expected business practice in a lot of cases.  So just to finish that example off.

1845             The reason industry seems to want to work with us ‑‑ and we met with them.  We tried to give them business cases about, you know, if you make your device more usable and more accessible, then that's good for everybody.  We tried to make business cases in terms of the aging demographics and there's going to be needs for devices that, you know, are usable by people with low vision and loss of dexterity, et cetera.

1846             Those types of arguments, although they seem interested to a certain extent, don't really seem to be the decision‑maker.  The decision‑maker is that they are facing markets and jurisdictions that have requirements to make their devices accessible and that seems to be, in my experience, the reason why they actually come to the table, sit down and actually contract us to help them.

1847             MR. LEW:  Just to add to Gary's comments, the reason that the manufacturers are interested in working with us is mainly because we are an organization with an internal technical capability.  So in a lot of cases they will work with disability groups and the disability groups will say well, we don't like this feature, but then when the handset manufacturers themselves turn around and ask them, well, what is it you don't like in technical terms, they are not able to articulate that because in a lot of cases obviously they don't have engineers on staff.

1848             In our case, we are an organization that was built on technology and focused on using technology and emerging technologies to help people with disabilities.  So we have the technical capabilities so we can actually translate into the actual technical terms what needs to get done on a specific platform or device to make it accessible.

1849             So that's really the advantage.

1850             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  That's an excellent segue, thank you, to my next question.

1851             Turning around to the groups that you work with in the disability communities, do you have or can you provide for the record some more information concerning ‑‑ you were saying earlier, and this seems to be an endemic situation for us as well in that we are finding it difficult to really get a handle on solid information that gives us insight as to those exact barriers.

1852             We understand to a certain extent the impositions that occur, but it seems that you have a good handle, or at least are working toward technology that is in response to those needs.

1853             Is there anything you can add to what you have just said, Mr. Lew, regarding disability communities and how they communicate their needs presently?

1854             I'm asking very specifically:  Do you know or do you have data that you can share with the Commission that gives insight as to the needs of the disability communities with respect to handheld wireless technology?

1855             MR. LEW:  We do have studies that we've done for specific carriers, I mean for handset manufacturers, but in a lot of cases those were done under non‑disclosure agreements.  So we are not able to put forward in a public forum some of the issues that we saw on a specific design per se.

1856             In general, it really depends on the design so there's not a general set of guidelines per se, I mean for a specific handset.  There are obviously best practices that we have sort of seen and which we are suggesting to some of the handset manufacturers.

1857             I don't know if you are looking for those kinds of examples right now or...

1858             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  I'm trying to go to the issue of having a better understanding of the need by the communities.

1859             MR. BIRCH:  Could I just add, what we are finding with each handset and related services that are provided on those handsets, that the only way to really understand what is working well and what needs to be improved is in these usability testing sessions where we actually have people with disabilities, across the spectrum of disabilities, come in and actually use these devices and through a bit of a methodology and then understand what's working and what's not.

1860             We are finding that that ‑‑ as Gary pointed out, we are gaining some best practices but each one is relatively unique and I think that that ‑‑ you know, when it's talking about the consultation process, I think that has to be built in somehow; that is, new handsets and services are coming out and you really need the input from the actual users about how to make this device usable.

1861             It may be hard to pull off a binder of standards that would guarantee that.

1862             I think best practices, yes, but maybe detailed, maybe not.

1863             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.

1864             In your presentation you referenced that in the United States the FCC has applied a ruling, section 255, which requires manufacturers and service providers to make devices and services compatible with peripheral devices and specialized customer equipment.

1865             Can you expand on that, please?

1866             MR. BIRCH:  Yes, and Harry can bail me out here.

1867             Basically I think what they are saying there is that if you can't make your device as a stand‑alone device easily accessible for a given consumer, that you make it easily ‑‑ that you make it such that adaptive devices like in our case something like a sip‑and‑puff switch or some other form of adaptive technology that a person would normally use to interact with technology can be interfaced to that device.

1868             That's a common kind of scenario, where we are trying to figure out how to use a double or a single input switch to interface with the device.

1869             So am I answering your question?  That's what we're trying to ‑‑ the point is they should do that were readily achievable.

1870             I guess my point was that based on our experience there are sometimes some technological hurdles there, but often they are not that great and it's just the business practices that come into place that actually become the biggest hurdle.

1871             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.

1872             Just one final question on the technology side of things.

1873             With respect to integrated approaches, taking technology and support for the technology from service providers, could you speak for a moment, please, on how vital you feel or not the integration of training and customer support to go hand‑in‑hand with the technology, how valuable that is to the success of a new technology?

1874             MR. LEW:  If I understand your question right, you are talking about the general services or the handsets themselves or the technology or just a broader ‑‑

1875             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  General services.

1876             MR. LEW:  Okay.  I think what we are seeing right now is that as you talk about next generation services ‑‑ and it goes back to your other question asking about the need that you sort of see.

1877             So in the old days when you are talking telephones, you are only talking about voice, right.  You are just having to supply voice and the ability to call.  Now when you are talking about the new next generation technologies, it's anywhere from e‑mail to SMS to web browsing to streamed video type services to even videoconferencing, in terms of some of the features that are envisioned in future.

1878             So when you talk about those level of complexity of systems, what you are seeing is more of a barrier being created.  So to browse the web not only do you have to be able to scroll around the screen to navigate let's say a website, but you are also having to enter text in order to make that actually interact with that.

1879             So the level of accessibility increases exponentially.

1880             Not only are you ‑‑ so in the old days obviously dialling, one of the solutions is using voice recognition technology to actually make a phone call.  Well, there isn't the power or the capability on a handset to do speech to text to actually, let's say, dictate a voicemail message or go on the Internet or do something very advanced in terms of ‑‑ I mean, some of the smart phones you can actually obviously use Excel or Word documents or read and review and actually edit documents themselves.  So some of the handsets are almost getting to the point where they almost are like mini PCs that you are carrying themselves.

1881             So when you are looking at that level of complexity in terms of the applications that are being delivered to the consumer, the level of complexity of the solution also rises, too.

1882             Now, to go back to your other question about training, obviously training and education is a really important component.  I mean, a good example is that we were trying to get handsets for a specific study we were doing and we were trying to approach carriers to see which handsets were actually available in Canada that supported certain assisted technology.

1883             What we did find is that when we approached the carriers is that even though they had accessible technology listed on their website or a person referred to who we should talk to, when we actually talked to a local person at a store that would actually sell you the handsets, they didn't know anything about it.  They couldn't refer me to a specific 1‑800 number or website where I could find more information about that.

1884             So there is a lack of understanding within the carriers in terms of the education of their own internal staff of how to deal with the request from the accessibility perspective.

1885             In our case it wasn't specifically around mobility impairment.  It was actually about another impairment, in this case vision.  So we were trying to get a telephone system that would support essentially a text‑to‑speech system which we were trying to do for a study and we did have ‑‑ we were referred to specific handsets through our contacts at Nokia, but then trying to find what handset was actually available in Canada from a carrier and then trying to find out information on how that was supported and whether it was subscriber‑based or whether you had to just go buy the handset yourself was a difficult issue for us.

1886             So it's important for the consumers when they contact the carriers to actually get accurate information in terms of what is available so they understand their choices.  But it is also important within the carrier structures themselves that they educate their staff so they know where to refer to those kinds of inquiries.

1887             So that we are finding is still lacking in the current environment.

1888             I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.

1889             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Yes, it does, thank you.

1890             Pursuing this a little further, just to round out some other information that I'm after, with respect to websites in particular, to service provider websites, is there anything else that you have not mentioned that comes to mind with respect to information and services that could be improved upon by the service providers?

1891             MR. LEW:  Are you talking just outside of the websites or in addition to websites?

1892             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  I'm thinking specifically about the websites at this point as a conveyance device for information.

1893             MR. LEW:  Yes.  What we have found is that obviously there are accessibility standards around websites primarily focused on the vision impairment.  So if you look at the W3C standards, they have mainly been approved by the people from the vision impairment side as opposed to the other disability organizations, and that has been the primary focus of those sets of standards.

1894             If you look at some of the carrier websites across Canada, not all of them meet those W3C standards.  In some cases I know ‑‑ we know of one carrier where they have created a parallel website for people with disabilities and another one for consumers themselves.

1895             So rather than adhere to the standards themselves, they have decided to just split it off.

1896             Part of it is because of just the technology.  I mean, obviously their main site is very consumer driven and they are selling to that very young demographic, which obviously is very multimedia‑based.  But if you look at a lot of the multimedia technology on their websites, it is less suitable for someone with a vision impairment, let's say, because they can't see what's happening in terms of a fancy video or a glitzy display that comes from the website themselves.

1897             Outside of the websites themselves, I mean there are still the support centres.  So if you are going through an automated support centre, a lot of people with mobility impairment need more time to interact with the system and in some cases they actually will time out before they are able to access it.

1898             So if you are into an automatic call centre, if you don't push a button within a certain amount of time because you are using an alternative method to generate the push button, let's say, on your regular home telephone, you actually won't be able to get through to an actual support service from that side of it.

1899             So that's a good example where your disability is dictating how you are interacting with the system and whether your system isn't accommodating you from that perspective.

1900             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.

1901             The last question in this line.  Outside of the website with respect to other communication formats that service providers have in their contact with their customers, are there any other formats or recommendations or ideas that your organization has that could improve upon or cause service providers to look at other formats ‑‑ I am thinking in the area of billing information, terms of service agreements and so on ‑‑ that can be improved upon.

1902             MR. LEW:  I think people with disabilities face sort of the same challenges that regular consumers face in terms of billing.  I mean it is still difficult to understand what you are paying for.

1903             One of the number one complaints, I think, we hear as consumers is that if I sign up for a contract, I don't get full disclosure of what I am actually paying for in terms of how many minutes.  I mean a classic case is when ‑‑ I mean even the industry has a difficult time conveying that information to the consumer.

1904             I mean a classic case is I was at an industry conference in the United States and they were talking about billing for data minutes, right, and they basically said, well, the consumers don't understand how much they are being billed and the structure of data minutes, because I mean if you are paying by the minute, let's say you browse a website, you don't know what bill you are racking up, right.  So at the end of the day, you may get a bill for $5 or you might get a bill for $500 depending on what it is.

1905             So from that marketing perspective, the industry actually went to unlimited minutes for a fixed fee because that was easier for the consumer to understand.

1906             So when you are talking about billing in other areas, I think the same challenges are there. I mean obviously for some people getting bills in alternative formats for the vision impairment, and I am guessing that they can speak to that.  I mean it is the same as when you get a banking bill.  You can get a Braille‑type format for the people that need it from that perspective.

1907             But in terms of the mobility impairment side of it, their challenges from that perspective in terms of actual billing are a little less because if they can get it in electronic format and on the web, obviously, as long as you are able to get an accessible computer, you are able to access that billing format.

1908             So there's ‑‑

‑‑‑ Discussion off the record

1909             MR. LEW:  Yes.

1910             MR. BIRCH:  I was just going to say ‑‑ Harry touched on it but I think for mobility impairment, it is keeping the language simple in a lot of cases so people understand what they are getting and what they are not getting.

1911             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.

1912             In the area of emergency services, you had indicated that ‑‑ you know, your identification of the obvious importance of easy and available access to those services.

1913             Could you expand ‑‑ you have been quite emphatic about your position that the CRTC should be taking appropriate action, immediate appropriate action.  Could you expand on that issue and perhaps put a priority to some of the points you have?

1914             MR. BIRCH:  Well, this is another one of those emerging trends that I see as incredibly important because as I started to do more and more research into this area, as I tried to indicate in my presentation, you will find that handheld wireless devices are becoming a main part of emergency plans for many institutions and I tried to give some examples in my submission to the answers to the Commission.

1915             And because of that it just seems ‑‑ I hope I am giving you the answer but it just seems that underlines ‑‑ I guess it is perhaps the best example of where a person with a disability must have access because that can be, you know, literally a life and death situation.  So they need to be able to access their handsets and the related services and if they cannot do that, then they are going to be at a distinct disadvantage and at risk if they are not able to do so.

1916             So I think I am so emphatic about it because I see that as the most kind of life‑threatening kind of situation that is emerging.  But ‑‑ yes.

1917             MR. LEW:  I can add a little bit to that.  I mean I think you are going to see this example sort of referred to a lot.  Obviously, there was the Virginia Tech incident where there was, obviously, a shooting at Virginia Tech in the United States.  In reaction to that, obviously, the House of Representatives have implemented some ‑‑ a Bill basically asking that the campuses are able to respond and get information out to students within 30 minutes.

1918             If you actually look at the incident itself, it is kind of interesting because there is, obviously, a 911 conference happening in Ottawa right now, at least from the Canadian members of that.

1919             What they found was that the cellular infrastructure actually was overwhelmed when that incident happened and the result was that a lot of the students ended up doing star 911 and trying to send an SMS message to emergency services.  There is no support for SMS on emergency services.  So those messages went to nowhere.  So there was an expectation.  Basically the students thought that service was available in an emergency situation and that wasn't a reality.

1920             Even now, I mean the early planning for the emergency services in North America, they are only now starting to look at supporting the next generation services like SMS and video relay.

1921             I know that I was talking to someone on the plane that was attending the conference.  He said that in a lot of cases a lot of the operators had forgotten about the TTY system.  So when they actually get an emergency call, if they don't actually hear a voice at the end of the line, they actually will hang up even though it may be a deaf person calling in on a TTY system.

1922             So that technology, even though it is getting older, that is the only way a hearing impaired person can actually make an emergency call through a TTY system, because the more conventional type of communications, which is SMS or email, is not supported by emergency services.

1923             So that is a case where the emergency services are not accessible to a specific disability group and there is no accommodation for that.

1924             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  I just have two more questions.

1925             The first is on the formation of ongoing work groups.  You distinguished that what is required is a multi‑level work group environment and I am wondering if you can give me an idea of what the perfect work group environment looks like.

1926             MR. BIRCH:  I wish I could give you the perfect one.  I think this will be a matter that needs to have some discussion between the stakeholders.

1927             But roughly, I envision that there probably is a role for an overview consultation process where there are some discussions about what are the key issues.  But then I see very quickly getting down to smaller working groups that are actually trying to understand the specific issues involved with specific services and specific devices and that is where I am also suggesting that that be a very interactive process with actual consumers with disabilities and that that be followed up with actual resources to put solutions in place and that those solutions actually end up being available to people with disabilities.

1928             So it is along those lines.  I believe that is what is really needed and the capacity of the not‑for‑profit organizations that are active in these areas and have the expertise around the disabilities.  We simply don't have the capacity.

1929             I think Cathy Moore from the CNIB was making a similar point yesterday, that it is very difficult for us to keep up these processes because we are literally doing them off the side of our desks.  So it is a really huge problem.  If we don't have some capacity to stay involved, that expertise is not going to be in the loop and it is critical.

1930             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.

1931             The final question is to do with funding and my question is directed toward the notions of the purpose of the funding.

1932             You are indicating that more research is required to understand the user requirements; is that correct?

1933             MR. BIRCH:  In some cases, yes.  So in a place where there is no best practices or standards ‑‑ and that is going to happen because the pace of technology is changing so quickly ‑‑ there needs to be a forum where the handset manufacturers and the service providers can sit down and actually watch people interact with these devices and that is the best way to understand what needs to be done.  You can't do that sitting around a table talking.

1934             I am sorry, am I answering your ‑‑

1935             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  That is a good start.  You are indicating that this type of funding would be necessary to support ongoing research though; is that correct?

1936             MR. BIRCH:  Yes, I am going to be careful with that.  At least my thinking there is not so much just ongoing research for the sake of research but once you identify that these are the issues, then there needs to be some resources to then ideally work with the industry engineers and the technical capacity that does exist within the not‑for‑profit, which is fairly thin, but then you sit down and actually make those solutions happen, make them real.

1937             So, you know, once you have identified them, that is great, but then you actually have to solve them technically and then there is the whole business process and finding some mechanism where those solutions are then available to people and that has to be done in a way that keeps up with the pace of technology.

1938             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Now, the big question:  Do you have or has it been discussed within the community as to what magnitude is required in terms of funding?

1939             MR. BIRCH:  That is a very fair question and I don't have an answer, I am sorry.  We have not had the resources or time to cost that out and I even hate to guess at it.

1940             But we are working in such a poverty kind of mentality right now that some funds of any kind would help and I think to do it right, it would be ‑‑ I think the numbers initially would sound big but if you divided that across all the population of users in Canada, it would be ‑‑ I am hoping a few cents per person would actually provide a fund that would enable all this to happen.

1941             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  That is per person across the board?

1942             MR. BIRCH:  Yes.

1943             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Okay.

1944             MR. BIRCH:  Like I say, we haven't done the homework to analyze that, the exact numbers well, but it is a conceptual thing at this point.

1945             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.  I think that concludes my ‑‑ sorry.

1946             MR. LEW:  I think there is ‑‑ I mean I think there is a precedent for it.  If you look at the way the relay systems are currently funded, I mean I believe that in Bell Canada's case there is like a 13‑cent levy per subscriber that goes towards funding the relay services, the existing relay services for the deaf.

1947             So we are not suggesting that ‑‑ anything new in terms of the funding mechanism in terms of dealing with this specific issue.  What we are ‑‑ I guess we are at an early enough stage that we are suggesting the idea but we don't know the magnitude.  Part of it is depending on how quickly new technology emerges.  So I mean there is obviously a lot of different trends emerging.

1948             So I mean if you were to look at, let's say, banking and ‑‑ cellphone banking is a new emerging technology, right.  So how do you understand the barriers of that and how much effort needs to go into understanding that for each one of the disability groups and how often does a new technology like that come along?

1949             If you look at it, banking and telecommunications are two of the most highly regulated industries.  You know, how do you merge those two together and then dealing with issues around accessibility around those?

1950             So I mean it is difficult to say how deep those issues are without at least doing some initial studies and there really isn't a mechanism to necessarily do an initial study right now, no formal mechanism that makes industry and the disability organizations come to the table.

1951             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  I think what I hear you saying is that it is an issue not just of ‑‑ I think this is what you said, that it is not just an issue of research applied to understanding technology and the betterment of technology for accessibility but all of the other related issues as that technology gets applied.

1952             MR. LEW:  Yes.  I mean at the end of the day we understand that technology is going to emerge very quickly and we know that from the telecommunications industry.  In a lot of cases, even they don't know what services are going to catch on with the public.

1953             In some of the industry conferences that we have been to they have been quite frank in terms of like we didn't think that ringtones was going to take off, right.  So ringtones is a billion dollar business for them but if you think about it, when they originally announced it and put it out there, they thought it was just like a small revenue value‑added service, right, but just because of the people's desire to personalize a phone, and that is more of a cultural shift, it has become a big money‑maker for them from that perspective, right.

1954             So when we are talking about next‑generation services, whether it is streamed video to your handsets or even banking, it is hard to say what is going to take off and we know that those emerging trends have to be prioritized in terms of what is happening, right.

1955             So whether you have to study every trend that comes up or whether just the ones that sort of come up as a high priority are going to determine the cost of what needs to get deployed.

1956             One other thing I would sort of add in terms of our previous discussion in terms of technology, within the handset manufacturers themselves, accessibility is really seen as a regulatory issue.  So if we were to look at some of the handset manufacturers, their accessibility group is actually under the regulatory umbrella.

1957             As a result, those groups are limited in terms of being able to fund research in terms of accessibility.  They actually have to go around to product design groups and twist arms and essentially get them to invest in an accessibility feature and that is sometimes a hard business case to make when they are trying to design the next generation of handsets to actually add a hook that ‑‑ or add a feature that would make it more accessible for a person.

1958             So even within their own organization within the handset manufacturers, having more visibility and having regulation is something they can point to to say, look, we have got to do this from a regulatory perspective as opposed to a business case or a good corporate citizen perspective.  So I mean they have their own challenges within their groups themselves in terms of having visibility around accessibility.

1959             COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:  Thank you.  That concludes my questioning.

1960             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Commissioner Simpson.

1961             I think some of us on the panel also have a few questions.  I have one and I will start.

1962             First of all, thank you very much for coming.  I think your information you provided us is very appropriate and, in fact, I want to leverage on it as well.

1963             You folks are technologically savvy. You are looked upon by industry, as you say here, as a resource and you meet with industry.  I think you also mentioned you meet with some of the handset manufacturers and some of the other folks as well.

1964             We heard yesterday some of the groups that represent people with disabilities saying that they don't have that expertise at all and you sort of appear to me as being right in the middle of this, right in the hub basically.

1965             You said in your submission earlier, dated July 24th, that during the deferral account you have met with this community coalition group of a number of various representatives of people with disabilities as well.

1966             To what extent are you working with those people on an active basis to answer ‑‑ to help them with some of the questions that they have where some of their members are looking for either technological interfaces or products that might help them as well?

1967             MR. BIRCH:  We have some examples of some initiatives where we are working with other community‑based groups that work with persons with disabilities.  We typically do that on a project‑driven basis.

1968             We are currently carrying out a project trying to understand the accessibility challenges around mobile payment and that is involving organizations ‑‑ other community‑based organizations that represent other types of disabilities.

1969             We do come together now and then, together as groups, to talk about the issues.  We try to give some support where needed around the technological issues there.

1970             There are other members in the community, that are either directly involved with consumer groups or helping to advise those consumer groups, that have their own technical capacity to talk about these issues.

1971             And so we tend to, at those meetings, try to get the folks that have the best technical understanding to try to sort of give the sort of basics of what is going on from a technological point of view and also what are the emerging trends and what are kind of both the threats and the opportunities coming down the line.

1972             But we are only allowed to do those now and then when funds are available.

1973             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, I understand the funding issue and I understand that one of the things you are doing is more futuristic, emerging technologies, as you say, as well.

1974             I guess what I am wondering is if this Commission is looking for a focal point that could be this hub to engage all the parties, funding aside, would your group be one of those groups we should be looking at as perhaps becoming that integrator, if I can call it that, as well?

1975             MR. BIRCH:  Yes.  Okay, I understand your question better.  Yes, indeed, obviously, I would like to work with my community partners but I believe we can be one of the key spearhead groups in that area because we have bridged, you know, working daily with persons with disabilities and have the technological capability.

1976             So if I am understanding your question correctly, we would be delighted for an opportunity where we could take a lead role in helping to ensure the accessibility of technologies for persons with disabilities.

1977             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay, those are all my questions.

1978             Commissioner Molnar?

1979             COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

1980             I had one question related to devices.  You are very technology savvy, you are working on standards and so on.

1981             Do you know of devices that are available in jurisdictions outside of Canada that would enable accessibility, either, as an example, different mobile handsets or ancillary devices that are available outside of Canada that aren't available here or aren't supported here?

1982             MR. BIRCH:  Because of Harry's work around the world with industry, I think I will defer that to you.

1983             MR. LEW:  Okay.  That is a difficult question for me to answer on a global scale, mainly because what we are seeing, if you actually look at some of the devices, devices that may be available in one country may not be available here just from a general consumer sense in terms of it being not popular or not being picked up by a specific carrier.

1984             Really, the way the industry works is that handset manufacturers manufacture a line of products and then the carriers get to choose from essentially a menu what products they want to support.

1985             So a classic case, let's say, from a consumer perspective, is, obviously, the Apple iPhone was available in the States but it didn't come to Canada till Rogers picked it up and Rogers is the exclusive dealer of the iPhone.

1986             And the iPhone actually is a classic example of an inaccessible platform, to be honest with you.  I mean they currently are ‑‑ there is currently a complaint against them from the vision impairment community, from the blind community in the United States.  Because it is all icon‑based, there is no registration for the buttons because it is a smooth screen, so I can't even tell what is on the screen and how to interact with it from that perspective.  So that is a classic case.

1987             But in terms of if you are asking me about a specific technology that is available in another jurisdiction that isn't available here, we haven't seen it from a general sense, from the perspective of it being a technology issue.  It is more whether the carrier has picked up that particular line.

1988             COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  I am sorry, that is actually my question.

1989             MR. LEW:  Ah!  Okay.  Fair enough.

1990             COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Right.  You know, I am aware that they carry lines and my question is:  Are you aware of some devices that would facilitate access for the group of your constituents that is not made available and supported here in Canada?

1991             MR. LEW:  Not currently and the issue for that is there are very few solutions currently for people with mobility impairments.  I mean I can count maybe three solutions, and again, they are just very basic solutions in terms of dialling the phone.

1992             There is one solution that is a little bit more advanced in terms of being able to, let's say, access some of the features of the PDA, and again, that product is now basically obsolete in the new generation of phones because the technology has advanced so far ahead of where the manufacturer is able to ‑‑ or a manufacturer of the assistive technologies has been able to keep up.

1993             I mean we face the same challenges.  We created a solution for a Windows‑based platform environment and the challenges that we ran into were not necessarily technological, but just the business structure in which it worked.  So we actually needed security certificates from the designer of the operating system, which is Microsoft, we also needed a security certificate from the actual handset manufacturer, and then we needed a security certificate from the carrier if it we are going to deploy it in the United States.

1994             So we actually had three levels that we had to get permission from to actually deploy that technology and we stalled at the handset manufacturer because they couldn't direct us to anyone within their organization that had the mandate to deal with accessibility specifically.

1995             Through their regular mechanism, we would have to come up with a business case, and if we weren't generating millions of dollars in revenue for them, they didn't have a mechanism to even address our business concerns.

1996             So it wasn't a technology issue in that case, it was a business‑case issue, in terms of:  unless you had a business case that was going to generate millions of dollars of revenue, we don't have the mechanism to deal with you.

1997             And we never did get to the carriers, and that's another level that was going to be difficult to deal with from that side of it.

1998             But, in general, if we were to look at outside of mobility impairment, the classic case is ‑‑ we talked about this ‑‑ the phone that I was trying to get for that study that actually had vision impairment.

1999             The phone suggested by Nokia was, I believe, an N86 or 8030.  We couldn't find that from a single carrier in Canada because it's not available from them, but it was the phone that was suggested by Nokia, in terms of being able to support text to speech and the most popular in the United States.

2000             Just because of the consumer demand side of it, or the perceived consumer demands from the carrier, no one was carrying it in Canada so we actually had to buy it from the States and bring it into Canada.

2001             COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:  Thank you.

2002             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner Lamarre.

2003             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Merci, monsieur le président.

2004             I have two points of clarification in regards to issues you have brought in your presentation.

2005             On page 4 of the written notes of your presentation, I will quote it, it says:

"The TSPs have indicated to us that they are too small of a market to make any difference."  (As read)

2006             You state that:

"This is not true.  Handset manufacturers are getting pressure from TSPs from many other jurisdictions around the world and Canadian TSPs should be aggressively adding their voice to dissent."  (As read)

2007             Last sentence, and that's what I'm getting at:

"Also, although not typical, there are examples where small‑market TSPs have had an important impact on handset manufacturers to produce platforms that meet special needs."  (As read)

2008             Would you have an example of such in a typical small market?

2009             MR. LEW:  Okay, I will answer that question.

2010             So the classic case is Jitterbug, in the United States.  They are a small reseller of minutes from a large carrier.  So they actually originally had a line of phones ‑‑ well, Samsung originally manufactured a line of phones that was suitable for seniors.  So, I mean, it's a very simple phone, it has ‑‑ a small phone.

2011             There's one orientation where it's a single button, right, and you can use that button to, essentially, call an operator and make an operator‑assisted call, and then it's got the standard handset inside.

2012             That phone actually disappeared from the Samsung line and for a number of years Jitterbug ‑‑ they weren't able to get a suitable phone.  So recently, last year, they actually convinced Samsung to make a small number of phones.  So their subscriber base is just a few hundred thousand people ‑‑ not millions of people,  just a few hundred thousand people.

2013             Actually, if you are in the United States, you probably will see their commercial.  Jitterbug was featured in the Wall Street Journal and they were running an ad campaign, because, obviously, this new phone just came on the market earlier this year for them.  So there's a big advertising push.

2014             But that's an example where a small carrier or a small reseller was able to actually get them to actually create a special line of phone for them.  Again, it's atypical, but it was a case where it did happen.

2015             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Okay.

2016             And in your introduction you mentioned that your society has helped over 20,000 Canadians with physical disabilities.

2017             Are those mostly anglophone Canadians or are you active also in the French parts of Canada?

2018             MR. BIRCH:  They are primarily English‑speaking.  We are active in the Maritimes and in New Brunswick and the Moncton area.  We have delivered some of our programming there in French and it is our desire to do more, but that has been more a resource‑based issue than anything else.

2019             We would be delighted to be able to expand our services to French‑speaking individuals as well.

2020             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  And are you aware of any similar organization as yours in either Quebec or in the Maritimes?

2021             MR. BIRCH:  Not in the Maritimes, and, as far as I know not in Quebec, not in the exact form that we are in, no.

2022             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Thank you.

2023             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner Denton.

2024             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  I have two questions for you.

2025             You noted that Canada tends to lag about 10 years behind in several areas, including emergency response.

2026             Could you expand on that please and give us some details?

2027             MR. LEW:  I can talk a little bit about that.

2028             So if we were to look at the enhanced E9119 services, in the United States they are already doing planning for the next generation of services that essentially are looking at supporting video relay, SMS, email as the next generation.

2029             As far as I know, the equipment at the core of most of the carriers, if they have bought any equipment in the last five years, that will be supported.

2030             But in terms of the actual thinking of adopting those services, and, again, this was talking to people that deal with E911, there is just some trials in the United States that are about to launch now in a few cities looking at those advanced services.  And if you were to look at the trends in which those new services get adopted in Canada, they tend to lag quite a bit behind, mainly because Canada, one, it's conservative; and two, I think they look at it as a cost issue because of the retraining of all...

‑‑‑ Technical difficulties / Difficultés techniques

2031             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  It's part of the service.

2032             MR. LEW:  Okay, fair enough.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

2033             MR. LEW:  ...because of the retraining of the staff.

2034             So I mean, some of the issues against SMS right now, currently, is that there's a perception that they would have to actually retrain all their operators.  Because, I mean, if you look at the way teens SMS now, they have all these abbreviations.  Well, a lot of the operators on the 911 services, they tend to be of a different generation.  So, I mean, they look at it as a really high training cost for them to do that.

2035             So I don't have a specific example, if that's what you are looking for, mainly because if you look at 911 services right now, they are currently voice‑based, right, and obviously there's less technology from that perspective voice base.

2036             I mean, I guess the big initiative right how that's happening in terms of the E911 is that they are trying to develop a system that actually is able to assign an IP address that knows what building you are in, per se, right?

2037             Well, that is requiring a major change, basically, because they need to change the IP addresses and assign an IP address to every building.  And part of that perspective is actually they have to change all the IP addresses over at once, not nationally, but internationally.  So that's their real constraint.

2038             But in terms of the planning, in terms of Canada, I have been told that they are not even looking at that and they are looking way down the road from that, where the United States are trying to address that now in some sort of manner.

2039             I mean, obviously, it takes international coordination, but just the ‑‑ I guess the level of capacity to deal with that issue in Canada isn't quite there yet.  I mean, even though they are involved in the standards process, they see it very conservatively and see it happening after it's been rolled out in the United States.

2040             I'm not sure if I'm answering your question fully.

2041             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  You are answering my question perfectly.

2042             MR. LEW:  Okay.

2043             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  Thank you.

2044             MR. LEW:  Thank you.

2045             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  So essentially it's a generational issue of adaptation to IP‑based technologies and it's a lack of foresight that this stuff is inevitable.  Would that summarize it?

2046             MR. LEW:  Yes, I think so, from that perspective.

2047             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  Okay.  One more question, please.

2048             You said you had some studies of best practices, that, though you had conducted some studies that were for specific industries and that were therefore confidential, you might be able to indicate to us what might best practices consist of in this area of design.

2049             Are these available?  Can they be made available?

2050             MR. LEW:  As it applies to specific devices, no, because those are covered by confidentiality agreements.

2051             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  I understand that.

2052             MR. LEW:  I think, from a general perspective, we are working on trying to create those best practices as more of an education for industry ‑‑

2053             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  Yes.

2054             MR. LEW:  ‑‑ so those will be available.

2055             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  And to whom and when?

2056             MR. LEW:  To the general industry.  And, again, it will depend on the application because, I mean, obviously, we are not set up to deal with all versions of technology ‑‑

2057             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  Right.

2058             MR. LEW:  ‑‑ we are very narrowly based, in terms of what we have been asked to deal with or which we are trying to sponsor internally, from that perspective.

2059             MR. BIRCH:  The other key factor, in terms of preparing those in a concise document, because we are certainly learning the lessons around best practices, but it's a capacity issue on our part, too, we don't have the capacity to actually sit down and publish those best practices.

2060             COMMISSIONER DENTON:  Thank you, gentlemen.  I appreciated your presentation.

2061             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very, very much.

2062             This concludes this panel and we will take a short ‑‑ oh, sorry, legal has got a question.

2063             MS POPE:  Yes.

2064             THE CHAIRPERSON:  I apologize.

2065             MS POPE:  Hi, Lori Pope speaking.

2066             In your testimony, in your initial presentation, you made a comment about:

"Solutions may be technically achievable, but because of business practice they may not be considered by TSPs and manufacturers."  (As read)

2067             I wonder if you could give us any particular examples of that.

2068             MR. BIRCH:  Yes.  We have tried to touch on that a couple of times.  It goes back to what I was saying, that, you know, you can sit down and talk about the business case around there's more and more persons with disabilities.

2069             There's lots of examples of where you have introduced what you thought was an accessibility feature and that turns out to be a feature that makes the phone or other types of technology a lot more usable by everyone, but those argument rarely get you anywhere.

2070             MS POPE:  Actually, what I'm looking for ‑‑

2071             MR. BIRCH:  Oh, sorry.

2072             MS POPE:  ‑‑ sorry, are examples of the solutions, so, you know, maybe a proposal ‑‑

2073             MR. BIRCH:  Oh.

2074             MS POPE:  ‑‑ that you made, you know, if this happened, this would address this problem.

2075             MR. BIRCH:  Harry, yes, because of that example you gave.

2076             MR. LEW:  Yes, I can refer back to the other example.

2077             I mean, a case where we created, essentially, an accessibility solution, again for high‑level person mobility impairment for a Windows‑based product, in that case we created the solution up to a certain level, but to actually deploy that solution on a commercial network we needed security certificates from not only Microsoft but the handset manufacturer and the carrier in order to actually run on their network.

2078             And the reason that is is because security is becoming a major concern from handset manufacturers because there's more and more technology that gets hosted on the handset, anywhere from your email information to, potentially, your banking information in the future.

2079             MS POPE:  Sure.  And I think, actually, not to cut you off but, you know, we are a bit tight for time ‑‑

2080             MR. LEW:  Yes.

2081             MS POPE:  ‑‑ I think you made your submissions on the barriers of, you know, actually getting it through the market process, or whatever.  We are pretty clear.  I'm more interested to know if you can ‑‑ and maybe it's just too technical for us ‑‑ but if you can speak to the actual solutions that could have been in the marketplace had the negotiations worked out the way you had hoped, but these solutions are not in the marketplace right now.

2082             MR. LEW:  Yes.  So the particular solution I'm talking about was a way for a person with a high‑level mobility impairment to essentially use a PDA, so that they could actually generate a cursor on a PDA that was similar to what you would see on a desktop.

2083             Because currently the PDAs are all touch‑screen‑based, so if you can't actually a touch screen, so if you can't use your hands, you can't interact with that device.  Or it's track‑ball‑based, well, there's no alternative track‑ball mechanism right now and there's no alternative method for you to do input in the system.

2084             So what this system did was actually create a cursor on an actual device so that you could interact with the on‑screen keyboard and you could use a mouse, or a mouse emulation‑type device to actually interact with that.

2085             So that was a particular device that's kind of stalled right now.

2086             MR. BIRCH:  Which worked.

2087             MR. LEW:  Yes, it is a technology that works.  So it wasn't a technology perspective, it's just that we couldn't navigate through the business structure to make it happen.

2088             MS POPE:  Right.

2089             And I believe you mentioned that you had purchased the Nokia phone you were referring to and brought it into Canada.

2090             MR. LEW:  Yes, it was an unlocked phone, so we could actually insert the SIM card from a local carrier.

2091             MS POPE:  And so were there any issues encountered in trying to use it on a carrier's network?

2092             MR. LEW:  No, because once you insert the SIM card it would have been compatible.  But as long as it's an unlocked phone.

2093             Keep in mind that unlocked phones are, again, atypical.  There are some distributors that will sell to you, but that's not the typical case.  So when you buy a phone in Canada from a carrier, it's specific to that network.

2094             It's not as easy to transfer on mainly because they are trying to recover their costs from the handsets.  They are subsidizing the handset that you buy.  So if you get a $99 phone, that phone actually may be $300.  So that's why they are trying to lock you up for three years:  to recover the costs of the handset from the lease.

2095             So if I buy an unlocked phone, per se, that may be $500 because you are actually paying the full cost of the handset, itself.  So that's a case where we actually bought an unlocked phone in the U.S. and actually had it shipped to us, and then are able to run it on the network by using their card.

2096             MS POPE:  Great.  Thank you very much.

2097             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is counsel finished?

2098             MS POPE:  Yes, thank you.  Sorry.

2099             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.

2100             We will take a 10‑minute break and resume in 10 minutes.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1028 / Suspension à 1028

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1047 / Reprise à 1047

2101             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.

2102             We will resume with the next party.

2103             Madam Secretary.

2104             THE SECRETARY:  This is Silvie Bouffard speaking, the hearing secretary.

2105             We will now call on Mr. Chris Stark to start his presentation.

2106             Mr. Stark, please introduce your colleagues, and you have 15 minutes for your presentation.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

2107             MR. C. STARK:  Good morning.  Thank you very much.

2108             To my left is my good wife, Marie; and my number one and only son, Jeff, is at the far left.

2109             We hope to have a few remarks from me, and then a PowerPoint from Jeff.

2110             I have submitted some 30 recommendations as summary, which you should have in your briefing book.

2111             We had real‑time presentations.  I could have given you a humdinger at three this morning.  That's an indication of how important this subject is to us.

2112             We are here as individuals.  We want to thank you for the chance to appear.

2113             And I want to especially thank the Commission staff for their many courtesies, support and help in getting us to be able to be before you.  I think they deserve a recognition or an achievement award when this project is over from the Commission because without their help I wouldn't be here.

2114             We don't have vast amounts of lawyers and vast amounts of staff to do it, and as I get older, my hands start shaking, and that is why some of the presentation material that I originally submitted is a bit rough.

2115             I can't think of one initiative that industry has taken that has not helped blind people only because the CRTC ordered it.  There are no other ‑‑ no other ‑‑ examples that I can think of where licensees, on their own motion, have taken action to make our service better.  It has all been dependent on you folks.  That is why regulation, a strict regarding of what is happening out there, is important.

2116             If you were to implement the stakeholder consultation recommendations, this proceeding would far exceed my expectations.

2117             In 1996 we went through a similar exercise with the Cable Television Association.  I submitted the report that was produced at that time, and a long lost friend, Harris Boyd, just came over to say hello, and he can tell you what was in that report, because he wrote it with people with disabilities.

2118             One of the promises was that we would have people work together, people with disabilities and industry, to solve the problems that existed and were coming forward ‑‑ one of the many unmet promises made to the Commission, not kept, in our view, by industry.

2119             Another recent example is that you allowed descriptive narration to go to digital cable.  At the time it was claimed that Rogers and others were taking steps to make it easier for blind people to access digital narration.

2120             I have yet to be able to find out what those steps are.  In fact, I have not found anybody, other than myself ‑‑ I discovered from a person who was kind enough to tell me about it that you can get a free box to listen to descriptive narration.

2121             Nobody else knows about.

2122             You talk about technology and forbearance and all of this stuff.  Let me tell you what forbearance means to me.

2123             Here is the pager that summons me to crucial medical treatment at the London Health Sciences Centre.  I can't see who is calling.  I can't tell what the power left in the battery is.  I can't turn the call off.  The only thing that helps me is that it will rattle, and then I can go and call and try to figure out what is going on.

2124             This exclusion in the marketplace threatens my very ability to survive.  It has to end, please.

2125             You talk about cell phones.  Here is the one I have.  The buttons are so big that two of them are covered by one finger.  You see, it is not designed for us.  When you try to turn it on, you don't know whether it has come on or not.

2126             It does have voice dialling.  I can say "dial", but you can't get it to work in a noisy environment.  It times out.  It doesn't give you enough time.

2127             Then we have the remote on the new digital box.  You don't know when you are pointing at the digital box.  You don't know when a number has been entered.

2128             That's all right from 1 to 10, but when it gets to 210, you get all screwed up, and you don't know where you are on the box.

2129             Those are on‑screen programming issues ‑‑ low‑tech, no‑tech, very small cost items to resolve.

2130             I have one more device that I want to show you.  This is something that has come out in recent times.  There is no screen.

2131             I don't know if you had to pay for the screen on your phone, but they charged me for it, even though I can't use it.

2132             That's the point.  We pay for a lot of services that we can't access, and we can't use, and we don't know what is happening half of the time.

2133             It confuses us.  It makes us feel incapable, when, in fact, it's the service and the technology.

2134             This machine has different shaped keys.  It has the feature that I wanted to demonstrate for you, which any machine could have, and that feature is...

‑‑‑ Audio presentation / présentation audio

2135             MR. C. STARK:  I guess I didn't hold it down long enough.

‑‑‑ Audio presentation / présentation audio

2136             MR. C. STARK:  That way I can learn the key panel anytime I want.  Those are my visual labels.  If I could get something like that on a TV remote, or on a phone, so that I could figure out where the hold button was, the hands‑free button, the link button ‑‑ all of these things are technology that we have today.

2137             My final point, before turning it over to Jeff, is that we often get advertisements and things about better deals and rates from all of the legacy carriers, but you can't get them in alternative formats, and when you ask about alternative formats you are told, "You can have only one alternative format."

2138             My wife reads Braille, I read text, and somebody else may ‑‑ we are planning for living together when sighted people can read the same bill.

2139             It's not my fault that I don't know Braille.

2140             Finally, it is up to you.  You can make a big difference in our quality of life if you can step up to the plate and hit a home run, and make sure that industry realizes that meeting our customer service needs is a cost of doing business.

2141             We are already paying for the services.  We are already paying for them, but we can't use them.

2142             Jeff, sir, if you would like to take off now and use the rest of the time with your PowerPoint...

2143             MR. J. STARK:  Thank you very much.  Thank you for having me, as well, here.

2144             I would like to talk about accessibility as a technical requirement.  As a starting piece for this discussion, the most common argument that I often hear on this subject ‑‑ and I think that many people hear it ‑‑ is the fact that the market isn't ready, the technology isn't ready.

2145             We heard that from the cell phone carriers many, many times.

2146             In front of me on the table ‑‑ and anybody can come up and have a look ‑‑ are about a dozen cell phones and BlackBerry‑like devices, using four different cell phone operating systems, from multiple manufacturers, all of which could be operated by someone with a variety of disabilities, not the least of which would be someone who is blind or has low vision.

2147             These devices are commercially available.  They are in the marketplace, but because there is no requirement by the carriers to provide these devices, they are not available in Canada.

2148             As Neil Squire said previously, you have to go to the States to get them.

2149             Your general consumer has a cell phone that is subsidized by the carrier, as in a sub‑$500 cell phone.

2150             In the States, all of these devices, if you sign up for a carrier's offering, are also available at a sub‑$500 cost.  But if you buy it unlocked or as an independent person, you are looking at about $1,000 out of your pocket.

2151             So everybody else gets a $39 cheapie phone that works for them, and persons with disabilities are left by the wayside.

2152             I am not going to talk about the legislative aspect of things.  I notice that ARCH and many other people who are far more eloquent on this topic than I are on the agenda, so I will leave it to them to, effectively, do that.

2153             But I do want to talk about the fact that technical standards exist.  They are out there.  Other organizations and other legislation are applying them.

2154             We often look at these requirements as being things that are separate, as in special things for special people.

2155             A number of years ago we would send persons with disabilities off to institutions, because we thought we needed special things for special people.  Why do people want access to basic services in the real world, such as access to buildings, restaurants and other services?

2156             We have moved away from that.  We now have curb cuts and accessibility standards for buildings.

2157             We had the same problem with the school systems.  Kids were sent off to institutions and other areas, as opposed to offered educational opportunities.  We have moved away from that.

2158             In the information management, information technology and telecommunications sectors we are dealing with the same challenge.  We think that specialized, compartmentalized services are really helping persons with disabilities, but in the larger scope of things, the application of standards and requirements in procurement, contracting, development and acquisitions will benefit not just persons with disabilities, but the general public.  This applies to devices, to software, to systems and information.

2159             The standards are geared toward providing device independence ‑‑ that a variety of technologies, required by a variety of persons with disabilities, can access these services, can know about offerings and other pieces on the web, out in the systems, out in publications.

2160             The other side of things is that, by applying these standards, today's accommodations become tomorrow's services.  The curb cuts and electronic door openers that we required years and years ago, we now consider them to be just a part of building systems, a part of the design of things.

2161             By applying the same type of standards, standards that reflect the needs of persons with disabilities, we can move toward a service that meets everybody's needs, instead of a service that really meets nobody's needs.

2162             More specifically, we talk about web content and information that is becoming more and more pushed to the web.  Our day‑to‑day lives are all based around the web.  Our work is all based around the web.  The carriers and service providers provide material on the web ‑‑ everything from television programming schedules to deals to promotional activities to devices, and so on.  If we don't look at accessibility as both a technical requirement and a usability requirement, persons with disabilities will be excluded from those services.

2163             Accessibility needs to be applied at the beginning of activities and throughout a project.  Without that weaving into mainstream activities and projects, the needs of persons with disabilities will be left behind.

2164             If we do not define and document the rationale and the requirements in everything we do, then we are just hoping for the goodwill of others, which doesn't get us very far.

2165             We have a number of good examples, both in Canada and abroad, including, as a starting point for accessibility in information services and information technology areas, the Government of Canada toolkit, the accessible procurement toolkit, which has requirements that could easily be injected into every contract and every procurement activity that is done, both globally and by carriers.

2166             This has also been adopted by a number of other governments abroad.  I have been told that the European Union has even adopted these standards ‑‑ or has adopted this toolkit, which points to standards that can be cut‑and‑pasted into mainstream activities.

2167             The last thing I want to say is, the more severe the disability ‑‑ we have statistical information that points to the fact that the more severe the disability, the more limits to participation in the general public.

2168             That is pretty much what I wanted to talk about.

2169             MR. C. STARK:  I don't know whether we have any time left for our presentation, but if you would rather ask questions, I can speak for hours on obstacles to our use as customers.

2170             The deferral accounts, moneys that were supposed to benefit disabilities, from what I can see, the carriers are still fighting over that bone, and I have experienced no benefit from it.

2171             I don't know, Marie, if you want to add anything.

2172             MS STARK:  Not really.  I will answer the questions as they come.

2173             For me, the most important step is to start implementing from the beginning of projects.  As Jeff was mentioning, you have to be inclusive in all aspects of a project, from the beginning throughout.  It is always seen as being a retrofit right now, or as doing something additional.  That is one of the reasons why we are always falling behind.  We always seem to be catching up.  It seems to be a never‑ending battle going upstream, instead of downstream.  You are fighting against the waves.

2174             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.  We do have a couple of questions for you, and I will ask Commissioner Duncan to lead the questions, but I do want to say that I have been with the Commission for five or six years, and I was actually in a staff position as well, and I did follow the issues that the Starks have been bringing up to the Commission for many years.  We are glad to actually see you here, as well.

2175             I will pass it on to Commissioner Duncan.

2176             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Good morning, Mr. Stark, Jeff Stark, and Marie.  My name is Elizabeth Duncan, and I am the Atlantic Region Commissioner.  As the Chairman said, I am going to lead the questions.

2177             I will direct my questions to Mr. Chris Stark, and you can redirect them as you feel appropriate.

2178             First of all, I want to say that your presentation is very thorough, so I think you have answered a lot of the questions I had.  I still have a few others, but the staff, I want to assure you, will take into consideration everything that you submitted.  As I said, it is a very thorough presentation, and I think, in the oral phase here, we only heard a portion of it, but we will study it all.  I want you to know that for sure.

2179             I want to start with described video.  I am wondering if you have a view on what types of programs are best suited ‑‑

2180             Let me say that the Commission has first considered that described video is best suited to programs with significant visual elements that are key to the storyline, such as drama, documentaries and children's programming.

2181             Some parties are of the view that described video could be expanded to include other genres of programming, and I am wondering what additional genres you feel would lend themselves to described video.

2182             MR. C. STARK:  Audio description and descriptive video, I think, are at the heart of your question.

2183             It really depends on the nature of the audio description.

2184             I know that Marie gets awfully upset listening to or watching a Senators' game.  The announcers are off telling stories about last night's visit to the bar, and the play is going on ‑‑ "Oh, they scored."

2185             Well, she doesn't know anything.

2186             Then, when there are things like a reporter from, say, Washington giving a report, there is usually stuff on the bottom about who he is talking to and who he hasn't spoken to.

2187             Another area that is critical for us is on‑screen programming/audio output.  To me, that is something that carriers can do fairly cheaply.

2188             I think that a basic answer to your question is everything, but you have to move in increments.  If you have adventure and kids' programming, particularly kids' programming ‑‑

2189             I don't see any descriptive narration on CPAC at all.  You could have a speech before the Canadian Club, and the guy on the secondary audio could say:  The Prime Minister is wearing a blue pinstriped suit today, with a red tie.

2190             Well, everybody else knows that, but I don't.

2191             Or, they are sitting in a semi‑circle.

2192             It is no different from the courtesy that you folks have extended us today by identifying yourselves before you speak.  I can't even see ‑‑ I know you are out there somewhere.

2193             I am not sure if that is answering your question or pounding my soapbox, but the issue is that descriptive narration has some role in sports, maybe not every little thing ‑‑

2194             MS STARK:  Maybe not as much as in some other areas.

2195             MR. C. STARK:  But certainly some.

2196             I still haven't been able to get the Weather Network's descriptive narration, and I have now gone to digital.  There are four key strokes to check a channel ‑‑ four key strokes, with four choices that I can't read.  There is a limit to my memory.

2197             Most people can remember four or five things, and tomorrow they remember them differently.

2198             So having a hot key to flip back and forth would increase my ability to use that service.

2199             Do you want me to go on, or have I ‑‑

2200             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  No, I think that's fine, Mr. Stark.  I do appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that we have to move in increments, and I note your point about CPAC.  Hopefully they will hear your point.  I think they have been recognized in some of the material I have read as doing a good job on closed captioning, I gather, so hopefully they will hear your point on described video.

2201             With respect to The Weather Network, I have a question.  I thought that I had read where you could get a descriptive narration on the SAP channel for Newsworld.

2202             Am I wrong in that?

2203             MR. C. STARK:  On the SAP channel for Newsworld it's my understanding and experience that that's voiceprint.  There are a couple of half hours, I think.  There used to be a day.  But, you know, when you are at 7:00 at night and you need to know whether a storm is coming, I still haven't been able to access it.

2204             I spoke to the folks at The Weather Network who are making a submission and they were saying that not all carriers pass through their descriptive narration on their channel.

2205             So I'm not really qualified to say any more than that.  I haven't been able to find it and it's probably a good example of lack of information because we don't know how to do it.

2206             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  If I can, I will just also acknowledge, then, that what I gather from your remarks is that you see that there is benefit in ‑‑ although you recognize it might be nice to have things 100 per cent described, you do recognize there is a place for both the audio description and the described video.

2207             I do note that you feel that there should be maybe more controls or more checks on the audio descriptions so broadcasters maybe get feedback so they know, because I have also been annoyed watching hockey games and hearing needless chatter when I would rather hear the game described even though I'm looking at it.

2208             So, you know, I sympathize with that.

2209             So maybe we do need some feedback to broadcasters.  I'm sure that they would like to deliver what their listeners want, so I think those are all very helpful comments.

2210             MR. C. STARK:  Most of the 30‑odd recommendations you have before you hopefully in the summary docket in your briefing book are what I would call low‑cost/no‑cost solutions; things like, you know, having somebody tell you when you call up this is how you sort this problem out.

2211             Not as happened to me a little while ago.  Well, how many lights are on your modem?  I don't know.  I can't see lights.  Oh, just why can't you see the lights online?  Oh, just a moment, and I'm off to the deaf relay service.

2212             That's valuable for people who can't hear, but I can hear.  It doesn't do anything for me.

2213             So training is a vital part of all of that and knowing their front‑line staff and people with disabilities knowing what is offered and what is available.

2214             This phone is a Rogers phone and we told somebody about it and they called up and they said oh, well we never had a phone for the blind.  This is three months ago and I know it's still available.  Its advantage is they bundle the talking program and they bundle the phone together.

2215             But it is a generation two.  It doesn't always work on all the services.  So as a result, when you use it you have to sign a two or three‑year contract, pay triple what a person who doesn't have the need for the Talks Program and 80 per cent of blind people I would say live at poverty level or below.  We are the lucky ones.

2216             So back to your descriptive narration, the increments are recognized but they have to be predictable and then there have to be some standards.

2217             Like if I could some day see the national news read by a gentleman in braille, or a sports report from a gentleman using a sign language interpreter, or a lady who is in a wheelchair covering an event, you know, those are the kinds of roles industry can play.

2218             And my wife says I'm babbling.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

2219             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Well, she did that very discreetly because I didn't notice.

2220             Let me just continue, then, with some of the questions that I have here for you, but your comments are very helpful.

2221             If we were to decide that the level of described video should be increased, do you think that it would be better to specify a number of hours or a percentage of the overall programming?

2222             Which do you think would be a more appropriate way to state it?

2223             MR. C. STARK:  A percentage because then you would have different ‑‑ either way will work, but because you would have a variety of programming.  As long as that percentage went rate across the board.

2224             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Okay.

2225             MR. C. STARK:  Jeff, did you want to say ‑‑

2226             MR. J. STARK:  I was just going to say a more diverse offering.

2227             MR. C. STARK:  Yes, a more diverse offering.  If there was anything to be emphasized, it would be health and kids programming.

2228             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  We did have a little chat about the genres, so I take your point that it's obviously more meaningful to you to have access to a wider variety of programming.

2229             That kind of leads into my next question, which is about the accessible channel which is expected to launch shortly.  I'm assuming that you are familiar with it.

2230             I just am wondering what you consider to be the role of The Accessible Channel and, as we go forward do you think it's a substitute for a requirement for the over the air broadcasters or do you think it should be in addition to that?

2231             MR. C. STARK:  It is certainly in my view ‑‑ and l'll let Marie and Jeff comment because they will have something to say about it ‑‑ not a substitute.  I don't want to watch the accessible ‑‑ I don't want to watch Grey's Anatomy on The Accessible Channel at 3:00 in the morning.  I want to watch Grey's Anatomy with my friends on a regular channel at 9:00 at night.

2232             So what the accessible ‑‑ you know, if you want to take the 11 cents per subscriber per month, there may be better ways of using that money.  It may benefit some people.  If it does, that's great.  In general, I don't listen to it because it doesn't interest me.  I don't want to hear described 1930s movies and stuff like that and The Shadow.  I can get that a number of places.  I want contemporary material.

2233             So I don't see it as a substitute.  If it has any value added, take a look at the number of blind people using it against the total number of blind people and decide whether it's worth it.

2234             Marie, do you want to make a comment?

2235             MR. J. STARK:  I think we all want to live somewhere, in the house, but we don't all want to live in the ghetto.  And I think that is to me what building a separate service apart from the mainstream offering could lead to.

2236             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you very much for your comments there.

2237             I'm sure it will be of use to certain audiences, especially until you get equipment or technology that is easier for you to use and navigate.  So I'm sure it is going to be appreciated in that respect.

2238             I think the intention, although I can't really ‑‑ I shouldn't probably go there.  But I understand the programming will be in line with what is being offered, although I take your point:  everything can't be seen at 9 o'clock at night, so it is not all going to be played at the time you might want to see it.

2239             But anyway, I thank you for your comments and I understand them.

2240             I think it goes without saying that you would agree that a working group would be beneficial.  A working group with the industry to prioritize and to give the industry a better understanding of what your requirements are would be beneficial.

2241             And obviously ‑‑ I shouldn't say obviously.

2242             Do you think there is a necessity for that to be a requirement, a regulated requirement?

2243             MR. C. STARK:  Well, if you want my short answer, it's three letters:  yes.

2244             The reason for that is my experience in the regulatory environment is that if they don't have to report on it and its accomplishments, then it will gradually lapse and be not very effective.

2245             I would like to see programming committees that would look at everything from employment to equipment accessibility to, in the case of my poor old CPAC ‑‑ I didn't plan to pick on them today, but...

2246             I don't remember ‑‑ and I looked yesterday ‑‑ that they have ever carried a program of activities for 20 per cent of Canada's population, people with disabilities, whether it's December 3rd, accessibility day, or maybe they are carrying these hearings.  But I was able to find it on the website with the help of your staff and enjoyed some good listening yesterday.

2247             So the issue then is that it is no simple answer, but the more people you can get involved the better.

2248             Let me give you a precise example.

2249             In 1994 there wasn't an accessible bank machine in the country.  We and a few others went after the Royal Bank ‑‑ God bless its soul.  It still has my money, whatever is left of it after the stock crash ‑‑

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

2250             MR. C. STARK:  And they then set up a focus group in Toronto, brought in the manufacturers, tried out different designs, decided on one and they rolled it out.

2251             The first one was here in Ottawa at Bank and Queen in 1996, I think.  And we had hoped that by that technology knowhow that it would have resulted in every bank machine in the country being accessible.  It hasn't.

2252             What it has resulted in is that technology going south and there are over 100,000 accessible bank machines in the United States.

2253             So, you know, the technology exists if nobody is willing to use it and the costs are ‑‑ you know, once you roll it out, the costs are insignificant.

2254             MS STARK:  There are standards as well, don't forget.

2255             MR. C. STARK:  There are CSA standards for phones, accessible kiosks, which are another aspect of all of this whole business.

2256             I think that ‑‑ you know, for example, the Commission ordered as one of our ravings of the past that pay phones have a pip on the five for orientation.  That has gone right through the industry.

2257             My Panasonic new television has a pip on the five.  But does my converter from my set‑top box?  No.

2258             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you, Mr. Stark.  I will continue on with the questions, because you are making a lot of good points.  As I say, we will take them all into consideration.

2259             I wanted to talk to you about Electronic Programming Guides.

2260             I understand that it may be possible to have a unique audio tone on an Electronic Programming Guide to indicate the availability of a described video program.

2261             I'm just wondering if you think that is realistic and practical.  Do you think that is something that would work?

2262             MR. C. STARK:  Well, you would have to try it, but off the top of my head it would be better than what we have now, which is nothing.

2263             What I would like is to be able to go to Channel 7 say, CJOH, and get a beep that let's me know that there is a descriptive narration program in progress and then to hit one key and go listen to it.

2264             I don't use the menu at the moment.  I am a long proponent and much of what you heard on this little machine here was a synthetic voice.  It seems to me there is no reason why the on‑screen programming can't be hooked up for either keyboard navigation or navigation through a third ‑‑ a peripheral so that you can scroll through the programs available and with the beep then tell me that one has descriptive narration.

2265             Right now the whole system is unusable for me.

2266             Would you agree with that, Jeff?

2267             MR. J. STARK:  I would say that there's sort of the three problems, right.  There is the lack of the on‑screen programming, the television guides and all the wealth of information provided people about what shows are on and that's almost necessary these days with, what, 400 channels to choose from, as far as knowing what's on it what's available.

2268             There is also, as he said, the issue of making the narration known ‑‑ or letting people know that the descriptive narration is available and making it easy for people to turn that on, leave it on or switch to it when necessary.

2269             And right now, because the whole system doesn't provide any text to speech output, there is no opportunity for that.

2270             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I think that I have trouble myself visualizing how the tone and even the audio guide would work, but I think that only underscores that there is obviously a need and there is a need for collaboration and input from the community.

2271             So we will take again that into consideration.

2272             I'm just going to move ahead to ‑‑ let's see what else I have here.

2273             With regard to new media, we were just wondering if you had an opinion on the most appropriate type of professional broadcast content that should be described online.

2274             We heard yesterday from the CAB ‑‑ I don't know if you're listening at that point ‑‑ that it isn't a simple matter to take the programming that is described on the linear television and put that on the Internet.

2275             So I don't know how practical it is.

2276             Do you have an opinion on what would be the most appropriate professional broadcast content you would like to see?  Like would it be drama, for example, or children's programming?  Would you prioritize it that way?

2277             MR. J. STARK:  So you are talking about IPTV?  Is that where ‑‑

2278             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  It's not IPTV.

2279             MR. J. STARK:  Or are you talking about videos on the web or ‑‑

2280             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  It's the videos, like for example ‑‑

2281             MR. J. STARK:  ‑‑ content on the web.

2282             There are standards out there for all of those, both on the web and in general.  So if we apply those standards, there would be lots of opportunity.

2283             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  What we are talking about here, if I can just clarify, is in an instance where CTV has a program that has described video on it but then when they put it on their website it doesn't have the described video portion with it.

2284             So if ‑‑ because there is obviously a cost.  They have given us that evidence yesterday.  There is a cost to doing it.

2285             If they were to prioritize, what priority, which programming would you prioritize as number one, for example:  children's, drama?

2286             MR. C. STARK:  Well, personally I would priorize the more popular ones.  You know, if it has good ratings, you obviously want it.

2287             If it's children, you would do good to have that.  If it's programming to help people live longer, that kind of stuff.  And current affairs as well.

2288             But I don't see why it should cost more because the Internet is so much more flexible.  So you get on this program, let's say it's The House or CTV Live with Mike Duffy.  Well, if you want to download that from the Internet, you go and you click on okay, I want that in English, I want that maybe in French, I want that maybe in descriptive narration.  So you make your choice.

2289             It's no different than the Canadian, God help us, Revenue Canada website where I can go in and click on their pamphlets for downloading and get it in plain text, HTML, PDF or a PRN file for braille.

2290             So my point is I would have to see why it costs so much to make something that already exists for the on the air programming expensive on the net.

2291             So if I understood that, then I might give you more of a useful answer.  But to me that don't make sense because if you already have produced it ‑‑

2292             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Well, we will have an opportunity to follow up with the broadcasters and get further explanation of why it would be more expensive.  I'm just ‑‑

2293             MS STARK:  Can I add something?

2294             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes, certainly.

2295             MS STARK:  A thought that always comes to mind every time I hear about this, what do you call it, captioning for the deaf is brought to you by, it has become a source of revenue and all the captioning, I would think, for all the broadcasters or whoever is making money out of that, because obviously if they are getting sponsors right and left.  Well maybe eventually the same thing could happen to descriptive narration.

2296             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you for that.

2297             MS STARK:  Anyway, that's the thought that comes to mind.  When I hear that I tell myself, my God, you know, maybe once the service becomes more known throughout the industry that this service is needed and is being used, maybe they will be able to get ‑‑ that will become a source of funding.

2298             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  We did ask that question yesterday, so that is on the ‑‑ we are considering that; that that might be a possibility.

2299             I don't want to miss anything here and I have my pages a bit out of order here, so just bear with me a second if you would.

‑‑‑ Pause

2300             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I'm just wondering how you would prioritize the different measures that have been identified for persons with disability.

2301             You know, if we only could do a few things at a time, what would be your highest priority?

2302             MR. C. STARK:  Well, the first thing is to be able to access the service.

2303             MS STARK:  Regulation.

2304             MR. C. STARK:  You forbeared in the telephone, you forbeared in the marketplace for cell phones, you forbeared in a number of aspects of the cable and satellite business.  And if that forbearance could be limited by a requirement to demonstrate how everybody can use the service through universal design, then that would probably be the top priority.

2305             Industry can come up with the solutions if they know they have to; and if they don't, well, it may impinge on their licence or whatever.

2306             But right now the marketplace is a free‑for‑all, and we are not able to cope with that.

2307             Could you repeat your question again, please?

2308             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes, sure.

2309             We have had a number of suggestions from different groups as to what measures could be taken to improve accessibility.  So I was just asking you to maybe identify the ones that you would rank as being the first priority, the top priorities, maybe the first three.

2310             MR. C. STARK:  Well, that would be number one, to make them accountable.

2311             Number two would be to develop some mechanism for people who are blind, and maybe for others, to access some of the control and management information.

2312             I have a program for the Internet which is much easier to use than Internet Explorer, and much safer.  So that is the second point, is to be able to manage your information in a way that makes sense to us: not columns, not charts, not graphics, not pop up windows.

2313             That reminds me, and then I will give you number three.

2314             Marie got a note yesterday from Rogers: Merry Christmas.  Rogers has a Christmas gift for you.  Click on this before ‑‑ go before December 14.  So she goes and the screen doesn't read anything to her.

2315             So I guess that was a bit of improper advertising, because it should have said if you are sighted, Rogers has a free Christmas gift for you.

2316             That is the effect on our psyche of feeling excluded, ghettoized and marginalized.

2317             The third area I think that would be very important would be to have website accessibility, to have on‑screen program access, to have the list of services available, like everything from free directory assistance.

2318             There are blind people out there that don't know that we can get directory assistance and then as a result of ASIC's application, hit one and get it free dial.

2319             It is especially true with the cell phone operators.  They are not equipped to handle that in any way.

2320             So the issue is once we are told it doesn't exist, then nine times out of ten you believe that, even if it isn't true.

2321             So information is number three.

2322             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you very much.  I think that a lot of that would probably be accomplished by working groups, or could be at any rate.  That is something to consider.

2323             One last question for me, because we are running out of time and I think probably some of the other Panel members have questions.

2324             Yesterday with regard to accessibility of information, the CNIB recommended that customer service manuals should be navigable, that they should be available on CD or via website.

2325             I'm just wondering your reaction to that, if that would serve your purpose?

2326             MR. C. STARK:  I'm going to ask Jeff in a second to comment, but I want to give you another story.  I sound like an old curmudgeon on the wharf giving stories, but anyway.

2327             When I got this phone I said what about an accessible manual and they said oh, call Nokia and they will make it available right quick.  We have an arrangement with them.

2328             Well, I'm still waiting.  And after calling four or five times and calling back Rogers, I gave up.

2329             So it's not just an accessible manual in a navigable format, which probably would be Daisy, it is an accessible manual to begin with.  And all manuals should be accessible in the format of your choice:  braille, audio, plain text, HTML, PDF, whatever.

2330             Jeff, do you want to finish that one?

2331             MR. J. STARK:  No, I think that was very effectively done.

2332             The only thing I would add to it is the fact that if the information is provided in an accessible form online, which is usually just HTML provided so that it meets the Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0, then a lot less requests for multiple format would be required as well.

2333             So if these things get applied universally, all types of areas could be benefited by them.

2334             COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Okay.  Well, thank you very much, all of you.  I appreciate your comments.

2335             Mr. Chairman, that finishes my questioning.  Thank you.

2336             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.

2337             Once again, I'm Len Katz, the Chairperson of this proceeding.  I want to thank the Starks very much.  I don't think there are any other questions.  I polled the other Commissioners on the Panel here.

2338             I do want to take the opportunity to thank all three, Chris, Marie and Jeff Stark, for appearing before us today and I will look forward to meeting with you at a future opportunity.

2339             Thank you very much.

2340             MR. C. STARK:  Okay.  Thank you and please hit a home run.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

2341             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  Madam Secretary, can we just take a five‑minute intermission to allow the next party to come up?

2342             THE SECRETARY:  All right.

2343             I just want to note for the record before the break that the list of Mr. Stark's recommendations distributed to the Panel Members will be registered as STARK Exhibit No. 1 and the Jeff Stark PowerPoint presentation will be registered as STARK Exhibit No. 2.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1141 / Suspension à 1141

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1151 / Reprise à 1151

2344             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just before we begin, a quick announcement.  It is now 10 minutes before 12:00.  My name is Leonard Katz.  I am the Chairman of the proceeding.

2345             I have a hard stop at 12:45, but if we are not finished with this panel we are going to resume after lunch with the same panel.

2346             It is not my intent to force any issues here at all, but if we don't complete before lunch we will reconvene after lunch with the same group.

2347             With that said, Madam Secretary...?

2348             THE SECRETARY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2349             I will now call on the Canadian Association of the Deaf for their presentation.  Please introduce yourselves and proceed with your presentation.

2350             Thank you.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

2351             MR. ROOTS (interpreted):  Hi, my name is Jim Roots.  I am the Executive Director at the Canadian Association of the Deaf.

2352             MR. VLUG (interpreted):  Hello, my name is Henry Vlug and I am here in two capacities.

2353             To begin with, I am a lawyer for the Canadian Association of the Deaf, but I am also here in a personal capacity.  I am Henry Vlug, representing myself.

2354             MR. ROOTS (interpreted):  I would like to ask for your indulgence if my presentation goes a little bit longer than the 15 minutes, because we are relying on the sign language interpreters.

2355             We are listed here as the Canadian Association of the Deaf but we are also representing two other organizations, the Canadian Cultural Society of the Deaf and Sign Relay Canada.

2356             We are pleased that the CRTC has called this proceeding to focus on issues of accessibility, but we would like to say that this can't be a one‑time event.  One public hearing doesn't resolve all the issues of accessibility.  The Commission needs to use this public hearing to establish a permanent mechanism for ongoing consultations regarding accessibility.

2357             When we talk about consultation, we mean both the CRTC and industry players.  The Commission itself has no consultation with disability consumer groups.  You depend entirely upon our participation in your proceedings and that is not good enough.

2358             In telecommunications American companies are much more interested in consulting with Canadian consumers than Canadian companies are.

2359             In the past six months the Canadian Association of the Deaf has been contacted two times by Canadian companies.  At the same time, we have been contacted nearly 100 times by American companies.

2360             The broadcasters are a bit better at consultation.  The CAB, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, has good relations with us, as well as the CBC, but there are a lot of expectations that we will rubberstamp any recommendations that they make.

2361             Decisions are made without seeking our input, but we have seen that captioning isn't the greatest and we have made formal complaints.  They will go out of their way to meet with us to discuss different solutions, but the answers are that they can't fix our complaints because they have made decisions regarding the captioning prior to our participation.

2362             Real consultation includes us in research and development and during that phase.  We should be part of the decision‑making process and we should be part of the company as staff.

2363             In last year's CRTC proceedings about the deferral accounts we warned you repeatedly that the regional VRS cannot succeed in Canada; that only a national VRS could be successful.  At the time the Commission decided that the deferral accounts money could only be used for regional or provincial services, not for national services.

2364             The result is that it has given us another long delay in bringing VRS to Canada.

2365             Bell Canada agrees with us so they have postponed pursuing the VRS system here in Canada.

2366             It appears that the Commission itself recognizes too late that they have made a mistake and now we are looking into ideas on how we can set up a national program.  That just emphasizes that you should have listened to us in the first place.

2367             We want to take a minute and talk about two different issues around the VRS.

2368             In the United States they have had the service for many years.  They have already done the experimentation and their research and they have come up with solutions to most of the problems.  We need to learn from their experience.  We don't need to reinvent the wheel.  We just need to move on with the VRS system.

2369             The technical specifications that we want to discuss is the call setup and signalling protocol.

2370             Currently there are two standards, the H323 or 323 and SIP.  Nearly all of the new devices coming to the market are SIP‑based.  Most of these have backward compatibility to the H323.  Canada doesn't have the legacy of H323 so it is wiser to standardize now with the SIP technology.

2371             The second technical specification that we want to discuss is the dialling number.

2372             Without a well‑defined dialling mechanism each vendor would introduce its own pseudo‑name or a number for calls between the vendor's own domain of users, for example, callers from one of its customers to another of its customers.  However, when one vendor's customer calls a person who uses a different vendor, they would have to use the lowest common denominator, which is the IP address.

2373             This is the awkward and time‑consuming process and can lead to poor video transmission.

2374             Recently the FCC established a standard.  It is a 10‑digit number that the VRS users input, but we need to learn from their experience.

2375             As we know, the major reason why we don't have a VRS in Canada is around the question of how to pay for it.  Again, we are saying to look at the American model.  Their model is fantastic and we should bring it here in Canada.

2376             All the American phone companies, wireless providers and related businesses contribute monies to the Telecom Relay Services Fund, the TRS.  Practically anyone can set up a Video Relay Service and then send an invoice for monthly costs to the TRS fund for reimbursement.

2377             The rate of reimbursement is based on the formula called the TRS rate.

2378             The advantage is obvious.  There is open competition to provide the Video Relay Service in the marketplace and the marketplace will choose the best companies, more or less.

2379             We have to remind you that the Commission ‑‑ sorry, that the Canadian federal government made it clear that it wants us to foster competition and market driven services.  Last February we set up a process for spending the deferral account monies, and the monies aren't earmarked for a Video Relay Service.

2380             Some private phone companies have already partnered with American companies with the assumption that the CRTC will approve a Canadian Video Relay Service.

2381             We are generations behind.  Other countries are providing a service and telephone companies are offering very few solutions to deaf and hard of hearing individuals, for example, with a message relay service.  But consumers are endlessly complaining that the service quality isn't good, that it isn't very efficient.

2382             If you adopt the TRS fund model, it will allow these companies to provide services with much greater efficiency and equality.  It would be a huge mistake to restrict the provision of VRS to only the existing telephone companies.

2383             The Accessibility Fund is separate from the Video Relay Service Fund, so we are talking about two separate funds.  The Accessibility Fund is already in place and we are in support of a national accessibility fund and it should be under the control of disability consumer groups.

2384             Many companies are involved in this process anticipating that the CRTC will be focusing on the Video Relay Service in the next year and that the Accessibility Fund will be available.  But we are asking not to go that route because we already have a good model in the United States.  It would be good to follow it here in Canada, otherwise we will be wasting another year.

2385             We have an expert report from Ed Bosson, who is the father of the Video Relay Service, and he lists specific references for the rules by which the American TRS fund operates.  It is laid out in simple terms and can be copied here for use in Canada.

2386             There is still time left during the present proceedings to deal with the Video Relay Service.

2387             I would also like to talk about emergency 911 services.

2388             For the last 20, 30 years we have been talking about improving services for the deaf and hard of hearing.  It is very frustrating that there isn't one central organization responsible for emergency services.

2389             The CRTC establishes the regulations but limits its own authority in this issue.  Most of the municipalities hold the responsibility and we don't have the resources to deal with hundreds of municipalities across Canada.

2390             We would like to suggest that some of the funds from the accessibility monies be used to conduct international research to see what is available and also what is possible.  We know that there has already been a lot of research and development outside of Canada for 911 emergency services, but Henry is a volunteer and I can only devote so much of my energies on that issue.

2391             We need the funds in order to hire experts to be able to do that research so we can come up with good solutions.

2392             With CBC hockey night that plays on Saturday nights the captioning is hit or miss, but Don Cherry's captioning is horrendous.  We know that Don Cherry is a motormouth and that he speaks very quickly and the captioning or the captionists can't keep up with his rate of speech.

2393             On Sunday mornings CBC, on their website, they do a replay of what he said the previous night, but it's broadcast without captioning.  My question is:  Why don't they use that website and use the time lag to improve the captioning so it's available the following day?

2394             I would also like to talk about the size of TV screens.

2395             About 15 years ago it was determined that if a screen was less than 13 inches that it didn't require a decoder inside of the unit.  Any units larger than 13 inches required a decoder.  But Canada didn't really establish its own regulations around that, and today you can't find a decoder inside a unit smaller than 13 inches here in Canada.

2396             It means that cell phones with the screens that can broadcast video transmissions don't have captioning.  The monitors at the airport don't require the decoder, or even on airplanes.

2397             The ruling or the decision was based on old information.  We assumed that deaf persons wouldn't be able to read small captioning, but we were never asked and we need to have that accessibility in the same way that everyone else does.

2398             You can read captioning on a smaller device.  It is available there when you watch Newsworld.  So the captioning should be available on smaller units than 13 inches.

2399             The Commission lacks awareness around disability right and issues because there isn't a disability unit within the Commission itself.  I have heard before that the CRTC has many disabled employees, but they are not in a unit that focuses on disability issues and who has the authority to make decisions or recommendations.

2400             We need to establish a disability unit within the CRTC.  We need to approach the government and say we need this disability unit so they can focus on different issues that affect us and to appoint a disabled person on the board of commissioners.

2401             We feel that you need to start taking action and move forward with different issues.  What we suggest that you start with is establishing the Canadian video relay service fund, and secondly, to establish the national accessibility fund.  We need to be able to use some of those funds from the accessibility fund to be used for the 911 emergency service.

2402             We would like to have a policy change to extend the captioning to all televisions and new media regardless of the screen size.  We would like to see a disability unit within the Commission with substantial authority, resources, and for all the employees within that unit to have some kind of disability.

2403             We would like to send a letter to the Canadian government recommending at least one person with a profound disability be appointed to the CRTC as a commissioner as soon as possible and to direct all industry participants to develop plans for ongoing consultations that include hiring persons with disabilities and make sure that it is not just a rubber‑stamping opportunity and not to call a second process next year to make decisions on the video relay service.  We would like to see it happen now, before April 1st.  Thank you.

2404             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  I think, Madam Chairman, we were going to have Mr. Vlug as well?

2405             THE SECRETARY:  Yes.  Mr. Vlug, we would invite you to begin your presentation and we will follow with the panel questions for both.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

2406             MR. VLUG (interpreted):  I am fine with that.

2407             My comments now will be personal and not in relation to CAD, but there definitely is some overlap.

2408             I have been working for myself and for the Canadian Association of the Deaf for more than 40 years now and it has been quite frustrating.  When I saw the blind individuals give their presentation, the Starks, earlier talking about descriptive video and your questions, I felt like it brought me back in time.

2409             It is the same old crap.  Excuse me, I am sorry.  You don't seem to have learned any lessons from our information that we provided years ago.  You have asked which channels we would like to have audio description and what priorities you would like to give us, but it is the same questions you asked us which channels should be closed captioned.

2410             And the questions about incremental increases, those are the same questions that we have answered years ago and our answer is it should be a hundred percent descriptive video.  Blind people should not have to pick and choose what shows and they should not have a segregated channel.

2411             And those answers apply to the deaf community as well.  I am sympathetic towards the groups, the blind people, and they have to go through the same things that we went through when we instituted or asked for closed‑captioning services.

2412             And the same excuses have come from the industry as well:  it is far too expensive; it is technically impossible.  We have heard those excuses in the past and it is simply not true.

2413             Financial hardship is another issue and people from the broadcasting associations crying, saying that there is a turn of events, difficult economic times coming up, but those are the same excuses we heard 20 years ago.  If you do your math, the cost would be less than one percent of the whole budget to provide the full access that we require.

2414             And now I see that you are questioning the industry and the lawyers and counsel are questioning industry about what is undue hardship. Undue hardship is the right measurement to use for that, and less than one percent of the total cost of their budget is not undue hardship.

2415             You have seen my personal submissions that I have submitted within the proceedings, and you can tell ‑‑ I don't know how to say it but I am extremely frustrated with the complaint procedure in regards to closed captioning.  It is totally useless and still is.

2416             There have been one or two exceptions where we have had some success.  You saw the person from Rogers here yesterday.  Susan Wheeler, I believe, was her name.

2417             Once, a few months ago, I finally got a response and saw some changes to accommodate or to improve the closed captioning.

2418             But we didn't see any action before that.  All we would receive was apologies and they didn't seem to take closed captioning seriously or their response would be:  I am sorry, it is just a human error, technical difficulties, you will just have to live with it.

2419             And hearing that again and again and again, it is ‑‑ you know, it is like the little boy taking care of the sheep and crying wolf.  Once in a while there will be technical difficulties, once in a while there will be human error, not most of the time.

2420             And usually the technical difficulties can be fixed, and as far as human error is concerned, they can do something about it.

2421             But they don't act.  And why don't they act?  It is because of you.

2422             In the past, you would have regulated standards for closed captioning, and there had to be a 90 percent without error rate and you would enforce that.  But every time in the past, there would be the excuse:  Sorry, we made a mistake but we have still surpassed our 90 percent non‑error rate, our capacity.

2423             So if they are over 90 percent, then there is no action.  So you allow for that 10 percent margin of errors but that is too large.  We need 100 percent captioning.

2424             I still today look at channels and I can't understand why there isn't any captioning if you say there is to be 90 percent captioning, but there are many channels that don't provide captioning.

2425             So now we finally have this new rule, 100 percent captioning but there is an exception to that.  We understand that there may be human errors and technical difficulties that may not allow them to have 100 percent captioning, so that is there open.  So every time we complain, they will say:  Oh! It was human error; technical difficulty.

2426             And so then your staff is stuck because you have this proviso saying they are allowed to have ‑‑ there is an exception and you are allowed to have human error and technical difficulties, and so then we can't follow through.

2427             I suggest that you get serious about it, set up standards like the Americans, that they propose, the FCC.  The FCC hasn't been passed but their paper ‑‑ and it is mentioned also in my documents and our positions that we have submitted ‑‑ I suggest you look at their regulations.  They have some great descriptions and their information is exactly the same as what we do here in Canada.

2428             Their solution comes from a wonderful group of experts which includes deaf individuals and DI's and NAD and other deaf organizations that have come together and proposed solutions and they proposed this FCC.

2429             And then, once again, why reinvent the wheel, just as Jim Roots said.  We shouldn't invent our own Canadian solution.  There is already a model that we can copy.

2430             I ask you to please set up standards and make the Canadian broadcasters accountable and that they take these regulations seriously.  They say here in Canada, we are better than any other country in the world.  I would argue, I haven't seen their graph, their report but I have my doubts.  Even if it is true, if it is indeed true, it is because I have been working for the last 40 years forcing them to.  Without me, we would be further behind.

2431             I have been coming to CRTC hearings many times, getting you to enforce these rules, and when I am frustrated and when you refuse to do it, I have to go to other organizations like the Canadian Association of the Deaf and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to work on our behalf.

2432             I noticed in the other room, in the examination room, you do have a copy of the case, the Canadian Human Rights case, Vlug against CBC, and that was 10 years ago now.  At that time, the Canadian Human Rights Commission examined our complaints and wouldn't take their excuses any longer.

2433             And at that time CBC had been cut back or experienced cutbacks from the Canadian government and they cried undue hardship, that they didn't have the funds, just like CAB was doing yesterday, that they didn't have the funds to provide appropriate accommodations.  And the Canadian Human Rights Commission gave them a chance to prove undue hardship and they didn't even come close.

2434             And I would argue the same with CAB. If you further investigate what their budget is, they cannot come close to undue hardship for captioning or for video description.

2435             I am asking you to please pay attention to the Human Rights Commission.  Don't give the broadcasters licence to discriminate.  That is what you have been doing and it has to stop.

2436             I will stop now and would be happy to answer questions.

2437             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much, gentlemen.

2438             I will turn the mic over to Commissioner Lamarre but I remind everyone that we will take a break for lunch at 12:45 and we will reconvene, most likely with this same panel, at 2:15.

2439             Commissioner Lamarre.

2440             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2441             Thank you, Mr. Vlug, Mr. Roots, for being here with us today and thank you for providing us with the written format of your presentation for those of us who do not speak sign language.

2442             I must say I have read with great interest all of your submissions, including the expert report that you filed in support of your submissions, and you have made yourself quite clear, what your expectations are and the reasons for them, completing this with your presentation this morning.

2443             Despite that, I still have some questions basically to probe on certain specific issues that you have raised and complete our record on others.

2444             So I will address these in three separate sections.  First, I will start to address a few questions regarding telecommunications services; second, even though you have not made specific reference to it this morning in your presentation, I would like to get your opinion about some issues regarding customer services; and finally, we will talk about closed captioning.

2445             I do also take your point that, Mr. Vlug, you are legal counsel for the Canadian Association of the Deaf and you are also here on your personal behalf.  So I will be relying on either yourself or Mr. Roots to let me know when an opinion by either one of you is made and is not shared by the both of you.

2446             Mr. Vlug, you have two hats, so please let me know if the two hats do not fit together, which one you are actually wearing when you are answering.

2447             MR. VLUG (interpreted):  Will do.  I will try my best anyway.

2448             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Specifically on the VRS availability, I hear you entirely that you are strong advocates of a national service.

2449             Now, this being said, could you expand on your opinion on the availability of such a service, the video relay service, as it regards both scheduling of the availability and also availability in both official languages of Canada in different parts of Canada?

2450             MR. ROOTS (interpreted):  Jim Roots.  Currently, we do not have VRS in Canada.  TELUS is supposed to be testing their regional VRS in British Columbia and Alberta but they have not shared anything with us, the deaf community.  So I can't share with you what they plan to provide or what they will provide. That is their way of consulting.  They haven't consulted.

2451             MR. VLUG (interpreted):  In the States, it is available 24/7, 365 days of the year.

2452             MR. ROOTS (interpreted):  It depends on the funding.  If you enforce it and you have a pool of funding, then it is unlimited.  It just depends on how much is in the pool of funds.

2453             SRC, sign Relay Canada, has made a short proposal last year and they would provide ‑‑ their proposal was to provide a slow start‑up; for example, 8:00 to 6:00, five days a week in American Sign Language only for the first two or three months, and then slowly expand to LSQ, and the delay for LSQ is that there isn't as many LSQ interpreters available.

2454             So we need to train them to be ready to take on that role.

2455             Our long‑term goal is to provide relay services 24/7, 365 days a week (sic) in both official languages, in ASL and LSQ.

2456             MR. VLUG (interpreted):  I would like to add, it depends on what your decision is but if you make the right decision there will be three or four or five VRS companies who will run to Canada and provide the service immediately tomorrow and they would be able to provide that service 24/7, 365 days of the year.  And they do have experience with providing second language interpreting as well.

2457             You can speak with Kelby Brick who is here.  He is going to give a presentation later.  He is from one of the American companies and they provide Spanish interpreting as well.  And they have similar problems; they don't have enough fluent interpreters in Spanish and sign language.  But you can ask him the details of that.

2458             It will not be easy and it will cause some disruption within the deaf community, just as it is happening now in the States.  The deaf community in the States is disgruntled because the community interpreters are being taken and used for video relay. Therefore, there's not enough interpreters out there to go to the doctor's appointments or for students to take university courses or whatever the case may be for the community.

2459             My personal opinion is that will be a short‑term pain for a long‑term gain.  We are already suffering from that now here in Canada, without having relay services here.

2460             Sorenson, an American company, already has four centres in Canada, perhaps five now ‑‑ you can ask Sorenson when they give their presentation later ‑‑ and they are currently hiring our Canadian interpreters from our communities in those centres.  So those areas or regions where those centres lie are already experiencing resource problems or issues with interpreters.

2461             To answer your question more simply, we should have video relay services 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year in both languages.

2462             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  You mentioned in your presentation that some Canadian companies have already partnered with U.S. companies in anticipation of implementing in the future a video relay service.

2463             Are you at liberty of telling us who are these companies?

2464             MR. ROOTS (interpreted):  Well, it says "confidential."  I know of two myself.

2465             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Okay.

2466             MR. ROOTS (interpreted):  I know two for sure.  I don't know if the others are really interested but it is confidential.

2467             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Okay.

2468             MR. VLUG (interpreted):  Officially, there is nothing yet.  None of the telephone companies have said that they are partnering with anyone.

2469             We have heard through the grapevine from interpreters or friends that have given us information.  What we have heard is Sorenson and TELUS have an agreement but it is not official.

2470             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  One of the issues that keeps creeping up either in submissions by parties or even in the presentations is the difficulty for the disabled community to find out which devices are available for their purposes and, more specifically, mobile devices, wireless phones.

2471             Some service providers have suggested that there are other resources for persons with disabilities to get that information, such as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind catalogue that provides information that is suitable to their needs.

2472             Now, I would like your opinion on this.  Do you think that it would be more effective to get such information on devices availability from service providers or from third independent parties?

2473             MR. VLUG (interpreted):  For the deaf community that isn't a large issue.  We have a pretty good knowledge of what's available and we are usually alerted to it quite quickly.

2474             In Ontario, for example, we have the Canadian Hearing Society, and they have a catalogue with all kinds of technical equipment that is available and most of that's not available out in the larger community.

2475             And comparably, out west, we have the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and they have a similar catalogue for their market.

2476             So if I need a TTY or some kind of technical equipment that's where I would go to purchase it.  It wouldn't be worth going to a phone company to get a TTY.  I would go to the deaf centre.

2477             We do have a problem with wireless service providers.  My BlackBerry, for example, it's similar to what you have heard from other organizations:  they don't have a package that is geared towards our community.  They have some plans that accommodate us, but then they hide some other things in the contract and it's very difficult to find it.

2478             I have a business plan, because I am a business guy, so I know what to look for in a contract, and so they don't realize that there is this plan available in the business section that would accommodate everyone.

2479             Jim is just saying, If I could add, please?

2480             MR. ROOTS (interpreted):  Every week the CAD receives four to six requests from the general public asking, "Where do I find a special phone?  My mom is losing my hearing and I don't know how to get her a telephone?  Where do I find a TTY?  Where do I get a captioning device?".  Every week we get four to six requests from the larger community.

2481             And they are individuals that weren't born deaf or hard of hearing.  They have become deaf or hard of hearing later in life and they don't have access to the deaf community and they don't know where to buy the equipment.

2482             And they may not be aware of CHS.  They may surf the web and they may find CAD, so they ask us.  But we don't sell technical equipment and we often refer them to the Canadian Hearing Society or other organizations, like WID, out west.

2483             I recall Chris Stark was talking about trying to buy a new wireless BlackBerry, for example, and didn't need the video component to it.  And then they increased his cost because he was asking for less services.

2484             And I have had a similar experience.  Two years ago I was trying to buy a new BlackBerry myself and Rogers offered $250 to buy the technical devices, and then $30 per month for the service plan.  I said, "Fine," but I said, "I don't need the voice messaging system, I don't use the telephone, and I don't need a ringtone, so take that off, and I don't need any of the music and I don't need the voicemail either."

2485             So I thought the cost would decrease.  Instead, it increased substantially.  They told me it was going to cost $450 for the technical device and $60 per month for the service plan.  I said, "Forget it," and walked out and went to another Rogers store and said, "I would like to buy a new device.  I want the $30 service plan without the voice phone," and they said, "Sure".

2486             They knew about this plan that would accommodate me.  We were done in a few minutes and I got the original price of $200 a month and a $30 service plan.  But this other store that I had gone into had no idea.

2487             So it's not standardized within the industry.

2488             COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:  Thanks, Chair.

2489             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much.

2490             We are now going to adjourn for lunch and reconvene at 2:15.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1242 / Suspension à 1242

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1414 / Reprise à 1414

2491             THE SECRETARY:  Please be seated.  Veuillez prendre vos places, s'il vous plaît.

2492             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.  We are going to resume.

2493             Can I ask the secretary if there's any outstanding issues?