Category: Resource Material

COMPETING MODELS OF DISABILITY MUST CONTINUE TO EVOLVE By: John Rae

Editor’s Note:. This article is based on John Rae’s presentation “From Invisibility to Rights Holders: Competing Paradigms of Disability,” at Ryerson University, October 2009.

In his 1990 article, “The Individual and Social Models of Disability,” Mike Oliver, an academic in the Disability Studies field, observes: “There is a danger that in discussing issues related to disability, we will end up with more models than Lucy Clayton [a modelling agency]. This is dangerous in that if we are not careful, we will spend all of our time considering what we mean by the medical model or the social model, or perhaps the psychological or, more recently, the administrative or charity models of disability. These semantic discussions will obscure the real issues in disability, which are about oppression, discrimination, inequality and poverty.”

It is my view, however, that many of these paradigms themselves are a significant source of the current discrimination, marginalization and oppression that is still the life experience of far too many persons with disabilities (PWDs). Today, the primary debate in the field of disability revolves around the fundamental differences between the medical and social models of disability–between viewing the disability as the primary cause of our problems, and seeing policies, attitudes and barriers in the built environment as the real impediments to our full participation and equality. However, these are only two of many ways in which disability has been described over the centuries. As new paradigms emerge, they vie for predominance and sometimes supplant previous paradigms, but the old ways of describing disability continue to compete for the attention of the public and of PWDs ourselves.

Persons with disabilities have been present from time in memorial. In ancient times, they were often ostracized from their communities and left to fend for themselves in the wilds. In medieval and renaissance periods, they were often ridiculed, as the Catholic Church interpreted them as rejects, works of the devil, and punishments for parental mistakes. This led to being excluded from society.

Remember the story in the Gospel of John, Chapter 9, about the man born blind? As the disciples walked along with Jesus, they passed by a blind man (begging, of course) and asked, “Who has sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” In some cultures, PWDs are still seen as punishment for past sins.

Following Canada’s Confederation in 1867, the first residential schools for the blind were established in Nova Scotia and Ontario. While education for blind students was undoubtedly forward thinking at that time, these schools were established under the provinces’ respective Penitentiaries and Asylums Acts. In the early 1900s, the “hide us away syndrome” became even more prevalent, with the creation of various large institutions, usually in small towns, where many PWDs were housed, “out of sight and out of mind” from the rest of society.

In 1918, the CNIB was established, and later other charitable organizations were founded, to form the rehabilitation industry that is too often imbued with a philosophy based on the Charity Ethic. Training of medical professionals, furthermore, focuses on curing or fixing the sick, though most of us are no more ill than our non-disabled counterparts, and those of us with a permanent disability will never be “cured” or “fixed.” Both the charity and medical ethics have some similarities to the Professional Ethic, where decisions about “what’s best” for us are controlled by others, with or without our input.

In the 1970s, persons with disabilities, seeing the successes of the Civil Rights and Women’s movements, began to establish our own organizations. The Consumer Movement, or the Disability Rights Movement, started partly as a reaction against the charity industry and partly to provide a vehicle for self-organization and self-expression, both fundamental rights in any democracy. This process gave us as citizens the opportunity to begin forging our own destiny. For many of us, the Disability Rights Movement was a source of empowerment, giving us our first chance to participate directly in developing policies and strategies that affect our daily lives. One of the lasting benefits of our Movement is the opportunity it has given many of us to develop skills that are so useful throughout our lives.

The Disability Rights Movement invested a great deal of time and effort to secure coverage under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under federal, provincial and territorial Human Rights Codes. We succeeded in gaining an equitable legal framework, but even today we are far closer to achieving the Charter’s guarantee of being “equal before and under the law” than to enjoying the anticipated measure of substantive equality of the “equal benefit of the law,” which we are still far away from attaining.

Today, various paradigms continue to compete for prominence. Robin East, AEBC’s President, has recently developed the newest way of approaching disability–the Rights Holder approach. Based on the idea of “nothing about us without us,” this paradigm posits that we who have disabilities must no longer be lumped with all other so-called stakeholders, but must be given a pre-eminent role in determining the policies and legislation that affect our lives. Currently, we as Rights Holders are forced to fight hard to maintain the fundamental idea that our concerns should be viewed as issues of rights and not charity, issues that belong in the news and not the Life section of our newspapers.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a new and important international instrument recognizing the appropriateness of the social model of disability. Now, it is up to all of us to learn what the first human rights Convention of the 21st century means, and to learn how to use it, and other Conventions, to advance our equality, both domestically and internationally.

BLIND MONITOR

Volume 30, Summer/Fall 2010 Voice of the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
The Canadian – Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
www.blindcanadians.ca/sites/aebc/files/docs/cbm/31/cbm31.doc

Share This Page

Service to Travellers with Disabilities

The length of the line of passengers never diminishes, despite the work being done. In the midst of this crowd, you are confronted with a passenger who does not put her bag on the counter as you have asked her to do. Do not jump to the conclusion that this passenger is uncooperative and trying to make a difficult situation more so for you. She might be a traveller with an invisible disability, such as a hearing or cognitive disability, who has not received the information which others often take for granted. Perhaps your view of her cane or guide dog has been obstructed by the service counter. Perhaps she is a person in a wheelchair who cannot reach up to the counter. Don’t succumb to the pressure of the situation. Take the time to determine why this passenger has not conformed to the standard procedure. Maybe it’s a person with a disability for whom the standard procedure is an obstacle.

When in doubt, particularly if the traveller with a disability seems to be confused or under stress, politely ask “How may I be of assistance to you?” and identify yourself as a transportation provider’s representative. It is important to identify yourself because the person may not be able to see your uniform or name badge and therefore may not accept your help because she or he thinks it is being offered by an untrained but well meaning fellow passenger. A person with a disability will appreciate the gesture and either decline or accept your offer of assistance since she or he is the person most knowledgeable about her or his disability. You will need to ascertain how much and what type of help is preferred and you should be prepared to provide a great deal of assistance to one person with a disability and perhaps not as much, if any, to the next person with a similar disability.

Always state what you are about to do. Having a hot cup of coffee cup placed in one’s hand can be a shock. Also, there is no need to shout or speak differently to a person with a disability. Always speak directly to a person with a disability and not through that person’s companion, if one is present. The “companion” may simply be another passing traveller who has stopped to exchange pleasantries. Attendants, escorts or interpreters assist disabled persons — they do not make decisions for or represent persons with disabilities.

If you notice that a person is not responding to your voice or to the announcements emanating from the public address system, get her or his attention by discreetly waving your hand or tapping her or him on the shoulder. This is a common approach deaf people use to get each other’s attention and it is as natural as a hearing person’s “Excuse me…”.

A few deaf people read lips well enough to carry on a comfortable conversation. A majority do not. At best, only 25 to 40 percent of words spoken can be lipread, so this is a limited means of communication. Most deaf people prefer to communicate with a pad and pencil for the sake of accuracy. Gestures, sign language, fingerspelling, facial expressions, etc. are other means of relaying messages. If a deaf person does not seem comfortable reading your lips, use a pad and pencil.

If you are guiding a blind person, let that individual take your arm, or, if the person has limited guiding vision or a guide dog, walk beside you. The person will be using your body as a guide. Describe the surroundings and provide an indication of potential obstacles such as stairs, partitions, open doors, or overhanging objects. If you are giving a blind person documents, explain what they are, when they will be needed and provide assistance in completing customs forms and other similar documents. You may be asked to provide aircraft, food tray, or terminal facility orientation to a blind person. The verbal picture you paint is as important as a glance. Use the image of a clock to provide direction, for example, “Your salad is in the top left hand corner of the tray at approximately 11 o’clock”. When you leave, always tell a blind person that you are going. There’s nothing worse than to be talking to yourself in public.

If you tell a person with disability that you will return in ten minutes, even if the flight is delayed, come back in ten minutes and renew the contact. Never forget a commitment to a traveller with a disability and keep her or him informed of any changes as they occur. During the waiting period it is also helpful to tell the traveller with a disability how to find a transportation company representative should assistance be required in between your contacts.

Persons who use wheelchairs prefer to remain in their own chairs as long as possible as these chairs are often custom-fitted. Furthermore, many wheelchair users prefer to perform seat transfers in private to avoid public attention.

You Can make a difference.

Share This Page

SEE-THROUGH BARRIERS Making Conferences and Events Accessible to People who are Blind. by MARIE LAPORTE-STARK

Most of us attend meetings, conferences and exhibits, whether for work, community involvement or personal interest. Unfortunately, people who are blind frequently encounter barriers preventing their full participation.

Even in the United States, where the Americans with Disabilities Act should have brought the U.S. light-years ahead of Canada, people who are blind routinely encounter accessibility problems. This is surprising, since all we need are a few low-cost or no-cost items.

Accessibility features (including Braille or large print documents) are available at most major gatherings of people with disabilities and even at some mainstream events. What’s often overlooked are a few simple steps which could make people who are blind feel welcome. Here are some ideas:

THE ANNOUNCEMENT
Promotional material should invite participants to advise of their needs in advance and mention the availability of material in alternate formats. Avoid using the word “special”, as these needs are not frills.

If possible, circulate notices electronically. Many people who are blind have access to computers with speech readout, refreshable Braille displays or enlarged characters on conventional monitors.

Too often, people are referred to a website for access information. People who are blind have difficulty accessing materials in a Windows environment because of design barriers such as graphics, frames, charts and formats such as Adobe Acrobat. If you must refer people to a website, always provide the address, particularly if Intranets are used for distribution. Ensure that the website and Intranet site meet World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) access standards.

Call people with visual disabilities before the event to give details about room layout and amenities. You can provide basic orientation, such as the route from the nearest bus stop to the event, and washroom locations. If simultaneous translation is available, describe how translation units are acquired and the location of the equipment table. Discuss the best way to access slides or other visual aids used by presenters.

All staff working at the event should know how to provide directions and other orientation information to participants who are blind.

THE FACILITY
When choosing a location, consider people who do not drive. Is the bus service adequate? Are there sidewalks? If the event is in a multi-use building, is there someone at the entrance to give directions? Is the route from the entrance to the event uncluttered and free from obstacles that are not cane detectable? In meeting rooms, ensure that cables, wires and microphones don’t block traffic.

REGISTRATION
When officials greet people who are blind, it is important that they identify themselves and ask how they can assist during the event. Some people will not want assistance, while others will ask to be guided. If you’re guiding, the person will take your arm and walk a pace or so behind you to obtain directional information from your body movement. If they are using a guide dog, they may ask the animal to follow you. It is appreciated if you describe the surroundings, including obstructions, as you approach them. When showing someone to a seat, indicate that you are going to place their hand on the back of the chair to facilitate orientation and seating.

Registration desks can be particularly disorienting as they are frequently in noisy and crowded open spaces. It is often impossible for staff at the desks to see the end of the line of people waiting to register. And it is also difficult for people who are blind to find the start of the line and move through it without touching strangers. People with visual disabilities may also be singled out by a staff person repeatedly yelling, “Next!”, “Over here!” or “Come here!” accompanied by hand gestures and an increasingly frantic voice. It would be most helpful if someone could monitor the line and discretely ask people with visual disabilities if they could assist. Do not reprimand someone who is blind for not being in line. It is frequently easier to find the table than the end of the line. Guide them to the appropriate waiting area.

When someone who is blind approaches the registration table, explain the registration process and signage information. Go through options and choices, including cost implications. Do not assume that people who have a visually disability will want the cheapest possible choice available.

If nametags are used, have a tactile indicator to show the top, so that the tag can be put on the right way up. You can put the tag on for the guest, but ask first. If there are colour or other codes on the tag, explain them, so the person who is blind can find coded activities.

Review the information kit and explain all documents. People receiving alternate formats should also be given the printed kit. This is frequently needed for their company’s files or discussion with colleagues. The kit may also contain promotional items and product samples.

Be sure to mention display tables or coffee services before the person leaves the registration table.

STARTING THE EVENT
The first announcement at each event should include the topics to be covered. This is vitally important when there are simultaneous activities. The announcement should identify the speaker, and mention amenities in the room. These would include: location of beverage services, water bowls for guide dogs, officials who could offer assistance, procedures for obtaining simultaneous translation devices, locations of microphones and how they’re activated, where to find washrooms, the time of the first break, and relieving areas for guide dogs.

CHAIRING THE EVENT
At smaller meetings the chairperson could ask everybody to identify themselves and mention their organizational affiliation. At larger gatherings, each speaker could be asked to identify themselves before speaking for the first time.

Remember that, during open discussions, people who are blind will not know the way from their seat to the floor microphone or when the microphone has been activated. Nor will they know whom the chair has recognized to speak or when they themselves have been recognized. After each question, the chair should say who will speak after the next participant. This allows people who are blind to know if they are in the speakers’ line-up and who else is going to comment.

Recognizing each speaker in turn helps those who cannot see to know when another person has finished speaking and not just paused for a second to consult their written notes. It is difficult to know when it is appropriate to jump in and speak without some visual or verbal clues. Frequently, people who are blind have to be overly forceful to have their comments heard at meetings because they are often passed over when only visual indications are used. Microphones activated with a toggle switch, rather than a push-button and red light can be helpful.

PRESENTERS
It is important that presenters verbalize visual presentations. This does not mean screens must be read verbatim. The message conveyed by each image can easily be woven into the verbal narration. “This slide shows…” leaves the audience members who are blind out of the loop. However, if you read the bottom line of the graph, chart or diagram, this not only helps people with visual disabilities, it also reinforces the message for others.

If complex matters, such as proposed legislation, are discussed the chairperson could summarize each element before discussion starts. An overview of comments could be given, by offering concluding remarks on each point before moving on. This helps all participants follow the discussion and keep their place in documents.

Recognize that people who take notes need extra time. Repeat contact information several times, speak slowly and use numbers to replace bullets when there’s a list of items. Provide descriptive verbal imaging of pictures used in presentations.

Verbalization can enhance and strengthen the power and effectiveness of any presentation. It is not costly or difficult. Just pretend part of your audience is listening on the radio or telephone.

LUNCHES AND RECEPTIONS
Self-service meals also present obstacles. Announcing the menu before meal breaks allows everyone to know the choices offered. Some people who are blind may prefer to go through the buffet line-up while others may prefer to be served at a table. Available options should be announced.

Many people who are blind feel uncomfortable when colleagues have to provide assistance rather than enjoying their own break. Having well-trained, catering service staff available to discretely assist, greatly increases the integration of participants who are blind.

At receptions, the microphone could be used for more than fancy speeches by dignitaries. Announcements about what’s offered help everyone to enjoy a social event. For instance, “This evening we have three buffets and two bars. With your back to the entrance door, there is a bar with an attendant to the right of the door where cocktails are available. Using the same reference point, you will find, in the far left-hand back corner, a self-service table for wine. At the island in the centre of the room, are warm items including pizza, potato skins, chicken wings…”

It is frustrating to be asked what you’d like to eat when you have no idea of the choices available. Preferences aside, food and other environmental allergies make this situation particularly hazardous. The vulnerability of people who are blind is substantially increased when it becomes necessary to rely on strangers, without official status, for help, directions or selecting food. It is also helpful to advise catering staff to announce the food they have available as they approach different groups of people at the reception, such as a tray of hors d’oeuvres, and what the selection is.

EXHIBITS AND DISPLAYS
While maps and diagrams can be helpful at exhibitions, some people who are blind find it difficult to conceptualize this information. Braille and really large print maps are heavy to carry and difficult to use when standing. Written orientation material, sent before the meeting, allows advanced planning. During the event, directions can be given over the microphone.

Most exhibits are in large open halls with many booths. Having straight aisles with 90-degree turns and, if possible, different textured carpet in the aisles and booths can be helpful. So can hand-level Braille and eye-level large print signs on a cane detectable pedestal at each end of every booth. Some people who are blind will start at one end of an exhibit hall and work their way across the hall from booth to booth, asking the name of each booth and what is being displayed. Handouts enable the person to take away as much information as possible to review with a reader or scanner. However, having alternate formats at the booth is always appreciated. A verbal description of the display pictures or a loop tape that provides descriptive narration of the content of the booth can be helpful.

Although vendors tend to avoid the clustering concept, it is helpful if all booths of a particular type are grouped into theme areas such as kitchen appliances, gardening supplies and so on, like a department store. So, if people have a particular interest, they can visit one area rather than hunting for the booths of interest scattered among other exhibits.

Sometimes, organizations or schools will provide volunteers to assist at an exhibition. These volunteers could be used to guide people who are blind around the exhibit hall.
Although this article focuses on low-cost or no-cost access measures, a reference to infrared talking signs is warranted. It is possible to install a system that will indicate the name of a booth and other information when a small hand-held device is pointed in the general direction of the booth.

ADJOURNMENT
By trying to incorporate as many of these suggestions as possible at your next event, you can make people with visual disabilities feel welcome.

(Marie Laporte-Stark is an advocate and freelance writer living in Ottawa, Ontario.)

Share This Page

Persons with Disabilities and the Travel and tourism Business

People with disabilities are visiting more places around the world more often than ever before. Travelling in a wheelchair through the rain forest of Costa Rica on an accessible track, using a walker in the Andes mountains, taking guide dogs on a Caribbean cruise or taking a tour of Boston on a bus equipped with an infra red loop system to help hard of hearing persons understand the guides descriptions, renting an accessible vehicle in Sydney or taking an accessible taxi in London are more and more common every day happenings.

“Travellers with disabilities are looking for the same type of products other travellers are looking for. Proactively encouraging persons with
disabilities to enjoy tourist and transportation features provides tourist destinations with a unique opportunity to promote new business and greater access at the same time. It is a win-win situation.

“Going out, touring and traveling like everybody else is an essential
pleasure of life regardless of age or disability,” emphatically states
André Leclerc, Director General of Kéroul.. Kéroul is a Canadian organization based in Québec. Its mission has been to join the tourist industry in making tourism accessible to persons with restricted physical ability.

In North America, Australia and Europe, persons with a disability
represent about 15% of the population. This market is growing rapidly.

More and more Canadians are travelling. A greater number of these travellers are senior citizens. As the population ages, the incidence of disability increases. Think back twenty years; it was rare to see a wheelchair at an airport for use by travellers. Now airlines routinely provide fleets of wheelchairs to aid passengers travel to and from aircraft within terminals.

Access Canada: Accommodating Seniors and Persons with Disabilities
published by the Alberta Hotel Association observes that “60% of that “60% of the disability market is over the age of 55,” and ” this market also has a higher disposable income than the other segments of the population.” . Many seniors will have their mobility decrease with age and while not always essential, mobility aids and special attention are certainly appreciated. There are almost 4 million persons over the age of 65 in Canada. That number will double in the next generation and make up almost a quarter of Canada’s total population

Demands for accessible services are increasing as more and more visitors with disabilities seek user-friendly tourism opportunities.
Earlene Causey, former President of the American Society of Travel
Agencies, is quoted in the report, The Travel Agency Beyond the Millennium as saying, “Our efforts recognize that travellers with disabilities are not a niche market like religious tours or adventure travel. The traveller
with a disability simply wants to enjoy the same access as anyone else.”

Ensuring that potential customers know of services designed to make
tourists with disabilities feel welcome will encourage people who otherwise would not visit , to book a trip. When tour operators and resort managers ensure the availability of needed services at the right time in the vacation via proper information and booking arrangements, they have created satisfied customers who will come back again. Also, these satisfied customers will become enthusiastic sales persons promoting your destination to others. Developing repeat business from satisfied visitors with disabilities is a practical way of generating future tourism dollars.

Availability of accessibility features and services is a key factor determining travel patterns and spending practices. Travel arrangements for several dozen persons travelling as a group were made with one tour operator with a better record of accessible services than their competitors because one member of the group was a person with a disability.

The economic impact of travellers with disabilities goes far beyond the individual and includes the choice made by travelling companions, be they family members, colleagues or fellow tour group members or tour operators
seeking to serve all. People with disabilities strive for a satisfying travel experience just like all customers. Arranging for the delivery of that product will earn return business. Looking beyond the disability to the travel needs focuses attention on the
service. Knowing what services or benefits will appeal to travellers with disabilities can be the added incentive to clinch the deal. More and more companies offer facilities and services which will appeal to customers with disabilities. Knowing which hotels have wheelchair-accessible rooms, what airlines provide assistance from the check-in counter to the aircraft,
which tour operator has accessible buses and vans that can carry
passengers who use wheelchairs, which museums have information for visitors who are blind, which guided tours can provide information to deaf and hard of hearing participants, or which cruse lines accept service animals are valuable marketing tools.

Providing appropriate travel-related services to this segment of the market is a professional responsibility.

Some tips when interacting with visitors who have a disability are:

– Speak directly to the person.

– Ask IF and HOW you can best help.

– Take the time to understand.

– Avoid touching the person or person’s wheelchair unnecessarily.

Do not distract service animals

– Provide information about accessible facilities, tours, etc.

– Do not pretend that you have understood when you have not.

– Do not hesitate to ask the person to repeat themselves.

– Whenever possible ask questions that can be answered by a simple “Yes”
or “No.”

– Be patient.

Many customers have disabilities which are not visible. Thinking about access when serving all visitors will enhance customer satisfaction.

Take stock of your clientele. Service delivery to clients with unique needs is an important aspect of your customers’ expectations. Recently, executives of a large corporation were embarrassed when their corporate conference
organizers did not know how to make the arrangements for an important
client who traveled with a service animal! Not having expertise in this aspect of the tourism industry can cost your business and negatively affect the bottom line.

Above all, relax, be happy and enjoy meeting a new friend. People with disabilities want to have a good time too. You can make the difference.

Exchanging experiences and understanding each other are the two positive sides of the tourist
experience for the host and the visitor with a disability. Awareness and understanding are the keys to building successful tourist
relationships between people with and without disabilities .

Share This Page

From Warehouse to Greenhouse to Open House

From Warehouse to Greenhouse to Open House
An Address to the Air and Space Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association
By Chris Stark August 1991

Table of Contents
p. 1 Introduction
p. 2 The Warehouse
p. 3 The Greenhouse
p. 6 The Open House
Appendices
p. 9 Appendix A – Significant Canadian Cases Affecting Persons with Disabilities

Introduction

We are eagerly awaiting the great life. We are anxious for change.

Yes, Canada is a great place to live. We are wheezing, tapping and rolling our way into our rightful place of dignity and independence within the Canadian fabric. Our resolve is fortified by what we have endured and survived in the past.

The continuum of our evolution can be divided into three areas, or three time periods, which are demarcated by distinct social attitudes:

– the era when persons with disabilities were pitied and looked after (the “warehouse”);
– the current era, in which persons with disabilities are discovering our own identity and society is discovering our abilities as we grow together (the “greenhouse”); and
– the approaching era of empowerment and autonomy (the “open house”).

Let’s consider these three areas and conclude with a brief overview of how the National Transportation Agency is contributing to the concept of accessible transportation for persons with disabilities. My co-presenter, Madam Forget, Member the National Transportation Agency, will elaborate on the role of the Agency.

“The Warehouse”

Not so long ago, the majority of people with disabilities – those of us who survived – lived in residential institutions, where we were cared for as patients. This institutional medical model was based on the belief that we were incapacitated. Individuals with individual disabilities were treated as a homogeneous group: services were designed to meet group, rather than individual, needs. One result of this institutional treatment was that the non-disabled community remained largely unaware of people with disabilities.

This so-called “warehouse” period is within the living memory of many. I, for example, at the age of five, left home of ten months of the year to attend a residential school for the blind, the proud traditions of which were rooted in the original asylums for the blind. My parents had no alternative but to send me there if I was to have an education.

Among my vivid recollections of this experience are images of very small children pressing their faces against the bars of a fence, looking longingly out at the sighted world. The notion of “us” and “them” had very real and specific meaning for us. For ten years, the “norm” in my world was that blind people were the overwhelming majority.

Our future prospects were few and defined by the expectations of others. If we were fortunate, we were told, we might work in a sheltered workshop or operate a canteen.

Still, blind people were the lucky ones. The life expectancy of many people with severe disabilities could be measured in months. Most children with disabilities did not go to school. Most adults with disabilities lived in medical institutions, a tradition that had gone on for decades. Those who lived in the mainstream of society, often struggling alone with the after-effects of institutionalization, reinforced the existing myths and stereotypes about persons with disabilities.

Initiated by the catalyst of the Vietnam War and its aftermath, the era of the “greenhouse” is now thriving. The traumatized and newly-disabled soldiers returning from Vietnam provided the models from which society as a whole benefited. There veterans refused to accept or tolerate the traditional way in which society related to its members with disabilities.

Canada’s proximity to the United States means that we, too, are benefiting from this accelerated progress. The advancement of rehabilitative medicine and the provision of government social services have contributed to a vast improvement in the quality of life for persons with disabilities.

While the remainder of the this presentation will deal with transportation services for persons with disabilities today, in the era of the “greenhouse”, we should not lose sight of the fact that for many persons with disabilities throughout the world, the era of the “warehouse” is still a reality of daily life.

“The Greenhouse”

Since the beginning of the “Decade of the Disabled” in 1981, the Parliament of Canada has planted numerous seeds of change in the “greenhouse” by issuing no fewer than eleven reports focusing attention on the aspirations of persons with disabilities. These reports have covered the spectrum of human interest from recreation and education to employment and transportation.

A number of Acts of Parliament have firmly rooted this growing understanding in the fertile soil of Canadian society today. The provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the National Transportation Act, 1987, contain guarantees of protection and the promotion of freedoms. These are founded in the evolutionized status of persons with disabilities, which has fostered our strong desire for the blooming of independence and integration.

Two important corollaries of these principles are the right to self-determination and the dignity of risk. We must be the ones to direct services and resources for ourselves. We must be the ones to determine how the available alternatives can be used to our best advantage.

The movement towards integration and demedicalization implies personal choice, user control over ongoing support services, and equal access to the rights and responsibilities accorded to all Canadians. This concept is supported by Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 1986, Statistics Canada estimated that more than 3.3 million Canadians (13.2% of the population) reported a disability. For these people, accessible transportation is a necessity and a right. With accessible transportation, people can become integrated into the community. It becomes possible to travel to and from school, a place of employment, or medical and recreational facilities. Through accessible transportation, persons with disabilities can participate more effectively and fully in community life.

Although the numbers illustrate just how much of a problem we have yet to overcome, they also show how much progress we have made. According to Statistics Canada, in 1986, 58% of persons with disabilities who reported needing urban transportation had access to it.

Most specialized transportation services which operate parallel to public transportation systems function on the charitable model. In 1986, 247,275 Canadians with disabilities were reported to be living in institutions, including 2,400 children under the age of 15.

The trend in education is toward placement decisions based on individual need resulting in greater mainstreaming at all levels. For example, in 1986, 4.3% of persons with disabilities received a university education, as compared to 10.3% of the general public.

In the same period, it was estimated that 25.4% of Canadian families with a member who had a disability were below the officially-determined “low income” or “poverty” level, as compared to 15.5% of Canadian families without a member with a disability. In 1985, 57.3% of working age persons with disabilities had total annual incomes of less than $10,000.

Persons with disabilities of working age have higher rates of unemployment than the general workforce: the unemployment rate in 1986 for persons with disabilities was 15.2%, as compared with 10.7% unemployment in the general population. This does not take into account a large percentage of persons with disabilities who have given up searching for work altogether.

Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that, according to the Department of the Secretary of State’s analysis of Statistics Canada’s 1986 Health and Activity Limitation Survey, the degree of poverty of persons with disabilities is correlational to the severity of their disabilities. Surprisingly, the largest percentage of persons with disabilities who are defined as poor are persons who are blind or visually impaired, follow closely by persons with either cognitive or mobility disabilities.

The work of the National Transportation Agency must be viewed in the context of today’s reality. Ours is a situation in which transportation is a vital foundation to the advancement of persons with disabilities. Once a person has chosen to exercise the dignity of risk and walk across the threshold into the community, that choice must be respected, encouraged, and, most importantly, accommodated.

Not all persons with disabilities are at the same level of social advancement or have the same abilities. Appropriate transportation services for travellers with disabilities are those which incorporate the principle of choice base on individual need rather than choice based on membership in a particular disability group. For example, not all persons who are blind or visually impaired have the same needs. We have all developed our individual methods of coping with the limitations of our disabilities.

Persons with disabilities, like all persons, are unique individuals with unique accomplishments. With each achievement, we become less willing to accept the indignities thrust upon us by systems and services which respond to us as “the blind” or “the handicapped” or “the disabled.”

Before concluding with an overview of how the National Transportation Agency is contributing to the “Open House” of the future, let’s look at some of these travel difficulties experienced by persons with disabilities. These pictures are composites of issues which have come to our attention. See if you can paint some beauty into these depictions of obstacles to the mobility of travellers with disabilities.

1.A person using a walking aid standing at the top of an escalator by a down arrow sign.
2. A profoundly deaf person reading a newspaper in a departure lounge with a speaker overhead emitting the words “All passengers should now be on board.”
3. A confusing set of direction signs with the caption, “ I do not understand.”
4. A person in a wheelchair at the bottom of a pair of train stairs or a commuter aircraft stairway, with the caption, “all aboard.”
5. A blind person with her dog and the caption “Please read the information on the card in your seat pocket.”
6. A person extending a tray of drinks to a blind person with the caption “Help yourself.”
7. A hearing impaired person at a check-in counter, with the caption “Your ticket please.”
8. Two travellers at a ticket counter or security checkpoint with the service provider addressing the companion of the persons with a disability rather than speaking directly to the individual concerned.
9. A blind person and a deaf person at the front of an aircraft being told to find their seats in row number six.
10. A ground transportation vehicle in front of a person in a wheelchair with the caption “Get in.”
11. A picture of a person in a seat with her guide dog in the aisle and an attendant stating “There is no room at your seat for the dog.”
12. A blind man hurrying into a ladies’ washroom.
13. A person who does not have a visible disability being asked to get out of priority seating for persons with disabilities.
14. A person with diabetes, while eating an orange to prevent a reaction, is told not to eat her orange by a person pointing to a sign which says “No food permitted.”
15. A person with epilepsy is denied service for being perceived as drunk.
16. A person in a wheelchair regarding a sign indicating that she should go up the escalator to the departure level.
17. A hearing-impaired person wondering why everybody is leaving, with the caption “There has been a change in the boarding gate for the flight.”
18. A blind person with her dog walking out an entrance door or in an exit door.
19. A person in a wheelchair trying to communicate with a ticket agent above him and behind the wall of the check-in counter.
20. A sign for train 204 leaving at 402 from track 024 against the backdrop of a busy confusing terminal.
21. A passenger is required to remain in a Washington chair for a long period of time between connecting flights because here wheelchair, customized for her comfort, is not brought to her by the airline.
22. An onboard wheelchair is not provided; the passenger has to be carried up and down the aisles of the aircraft.

“The Open House”

Thirty years ago, these images may have been looked upon as acceptable or understandable. Today, on the threshold of the “Open House” of the future, these images are jarring. In other words, attitudes and expectations have gone far beyond the existing situation today.

The ideals of the right to self-determination and the dignity of risk are important considerations in the Agency’s approach to accessible transportation, which hinges on the concept of “undue obstacle”. This concept is not defined by legislation, but by decision and regulation, actions taking in a climate of increased acceptance of our right to live fully integrated lives within the community and to participate in all aspects of it.

We are moving far away from the view of individuals with disabilities as being “sick” and in need of a complex bureaucracy of services, to a view of disability as a live issue or social circumstance which relates to all sectors of society, including the family, the community, the church, business, and, the specific sector of concern to us, transportation under federal jurisdiction.

The government of Canada has placed its prestige, authority and skill in full support of accessible transportation. This has come about, to a large degree, in response to the persistent lobbying of provincial and local consumer groups of persons with disabilities. The growing level of participation and sense of empowerment among persons with disabilities is a very real factor to be taken into consideration by any provider of transportation services or regulator of transportation services such as the National Transportation Agency.

The Agency was established in 1988 under the National Transportation Action, 1987. It replaced the former Canadian Transport Commission as the federal regulator of Canadian transport systems. The Agency is primarily responsible for economic regulation. It controls the entry and exit of transportation providers into the Canadian market. It has broad powers to resolve disputes between carriers and shippers. It pays subsidies under a number of government programs to Canadian carriers.

The Agency has no policy-making responsibilities. It is there to administer law. The Agency acts with government policy although policy direction may not be given on any case currently before the Agency for decision. Agency regulations must be approved by Cabinet.

Surprisingly, in the middle of this piece of economic legislation, and thus in the middle of what is essentially an economic regulatory body, we fine the concept of a basic human right to accessibility. I suggest that it is primarily there to ensure that accommodating persons with disabilities will be considered and acceptable cost of doing business in this country. Its practical application is ensured by its inclusion in the Act, setting the operating parameters of the transportation industry.

The debate is fundamental. I’m always pointing out that you “serve” passengers and “handle” freight. The jargon of the industry and the rush to meet the need may cause us to momentarily lose sight of the human aspect of everything we do.

Within the Agency, the Accessible Transportation Directorate is responsible for the programs to ensure fair access to travellers with disabilities. A dynamic four-star program has been established and is vigorously being implemented as we move toward the “Open House” era of the 21st century. Its four stars are consultation, monitoring, complaint resolution, and regulation development.

Madame Forget, Member National Transportation Agency, describes for you how these four stars are used to practically apply the law to improve the quality of life for persons with disabilities through fair access to transportation.

It only remains for me to say to you today that there is a role for each and every one of us in this evolutionary process, on the personal and professional level. The legal profession has always been in the forefront of social change and advancement: we need not look further than the civil rights movement in the United States and the role played by the judicial system in the desegregation of schools.

Therefore, remember: one in seven of your colleagues, of you clients, and of the travelling public, is a person with a disability. As the population ages, this percentage will only grow larger. With understanding and concern for one another the numbers may grow larger, but the problems will grow smaller. As Marcia Rioux from the G. Allan Roeher Institute of Toronto reflected:

“The needs of persons with a disability should, however, not be thought of as special needs, anymore than the needs of those without disabilities might have been seen as special had those with disabilities designed the world initially.”

Join us in the “Open House” of the 21st century.

Appendix A
Significant Canadian Cases Affecting Persons with Disabilities

Boehm v. National System of Baking Ltd. (Ontario Board of Inquiry, March 19, 1987) 8 C.H.R.R. D/4110 (harassment in employment because of mental disability)

Cameron v. Nel-Gor Castle Nursing Home (1984) 5 C.H.R.R. D/2170 (applying the “incapable of performing the essential duties” test under the Ontario Human Rights Code to a nurses’ aid with a disabled hand).

Canadian Disability Rights Council v. Canada (Federal Court, Trial Division, October 17, 1988) 38 C.R.R 53 (right to vote for persons suffering from mental illness)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. V. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Mahon (Federal Cours of Appeal, June 16, 1987) 8 C.H.R.R. D/4263 (case of a stable diabetic refused employment with railway; issue of “risk”).

Clark v. Clark (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 383, 4 C.H.R.R. 3 C.R.R. 342 (Ont. Co. Ct.) (assertion of mentally handicapped person’s right to make decisions on his own behalf as an adult; young man with severe cerebral palsy and mental disability declared competent).

Dayday v. MacEwan (1987), 62 O.R. (2d) 588 (Ont. Dist. Ct.) (detention of involuntary patient in a psychiatric facility).

Eve v. Mrs. E. (Supreme Court of Canada, October 23, 1986) [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388, 185 A.P.R 273, 61 Nfld and P.E.I.R. 273, 31 D.I.R. (4th) 1 (a non-therapeutic sterilization cannot be performed on a mentally disabled woman without her consent).

Huck v. Canadian Odeon Theatres Limited (Sask. Court of Appeal, March 4, 1985) 6 C.H.R.R. D/2682 (a wheelchair user is entitled to a choice of theatre seating equivalent to any other patron).

Kelly v. VIA Rail Canada (Railway Transport Committee, Canadian Transport Commission, April 24, 1980) 1 C.H.R.R D/97 (refusal to sell railway ticket to individual in a wheelchair).

Lanark, Leeds and Grenville County Roman Catholic Separate School Board v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont. Supreme Court, June 22, 1987) 8 C.H.R.R D/4235 (Board of Inquiry ruling of discrimination on the ground of mental disability is reversed on the basis that school facilities lack the amenities, (i.e., necessary aides and trained teachers).

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) V.B.(R.) (1990)m 70 D.L.R. (4th) 568 (N.B. Queen’s Bench) (denial of medical treatment to severely handicapped child).

Oiumette v. Lily Cups Ltd. 12 C.H.R.R. D/19 (Ontario Board of Inquiry, March 14, 1990 (sickness, such as a flu, is not a handicap within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code).

Peters v. University Hospital Board (Sask. Court of Appeal, May 17, 1983) 4 C.H.R.R. D/1464 (access to facilities customarily available to the public by a blind person with a guide dog).

R. v. Ogg-Moss (S.C.C.) [1984] S.C.R. 171, 11 D.L.R. (4th) 549, 6 C.H.R.R. D/2498 (developmentally handicapped adults not to be exempted from protection of criminal law on the basis that they are “childlike”).

R. v. Swain (Ont. Court of Appeal) 24 C.C.C. (3d) 385 53 O.R. (2d) 609 50 C.R. (3d) 97 (right to a fair hearing concerning commitment to custody of a person declared not fit to stand trial; currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada).

Re R.D. (Stephen Dawson case) (1983) 42 B.C.L.R. 173 (no one has the power to judge the quality of another’s life, regardless of disability).

Reference re Special Air Fare Policy for Attendants of Disabled Persons (Canadian Transport Commission, October 1986) (disabled people entitled under the Charter to have their attendants travel on their ticket i.e., “one person one fare”).

Trottier v. Ontario Express (National Transportation Agency, September 27, 1990) (disabled person has a right to fly in a commercial airplane and receive boarding assistance from the airline).

Also:

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (S.C.C.) [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289, 56 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 10 C.H.R.R. D/5719 (on what is discrimination).

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission) (S.C.C.) [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489, 12 C.H.R.R. D/417 (on duty to accommodate).

Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Borough of Etobicoke (S.C.C.) [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202, 3 C.H.R.R. D/781 (on bona fide occupational requirements).

Share This Page

Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-430 Accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services

Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-430
Route reference: Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing 2008-8 / Telecom Public Notice 2008-8

File number: 8665-C12-200807943
Ottawa, 21 July 2009
Accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services
In this Regulatory Policy, which addresses unresolved issues related to the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services to persons with disabilities, the Commission
requires telecommunications service providers to provide a new relay service – Internet Protocol Relay Service.

initiates further investigation into possible improvements to emergency 9-1-1 service, including text messaging to 9-1-1.

requests that wireless service providers, in consultation with persons with disabilities, offer at least one type of wireless mobile handset to serve the needs of people who are blind and/or have moderate-to-severe mobility or cognitive disabilities, noting that it will consider imposing such a requirement in the future if necessary.

requires telecommunications service providers and broadcasting distribution undertakings to improve the accessibility of the information, service and support they offer to Canadians.

directs television broadcasters to improve and control the quality of closed captioning, including in digital formats. It intends to impose conditions of licence in these areas at the broadcasters’ licence renewals.

intends to require additional television broadcasters to provide described video through conditions of licence imposed at their licence renewals. The Commission also sets out various measures designed to increase the awareness and accessibility of described video.

intends to require television broadcasters to provide high-quality audio description through conditions of licence to be imposed at the time of their licence renewals.

notes that, under its revised approach for closed captioning and described video, French-language broadcasters will now have the same requirements to provide these services as English-language broadcasters.

Introduction
1.
In previous decisions and policy statements, the Commission has addressed the telecommunications and broadcasting needs of persons with disabilities. With Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing 2008-8/Telecom Public Notice 2008-8, the Commission initiated a converged telecommunications and broadcasting proceeding to address unresolved issues related to the accessibility of those services to persons with disabilities. The proceeding included a public hearing in the National Capital Region, which began on 17 November 2008. The record of this proceeding is available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca under “Public Proceedings.”
Issues
2. The Commission has taken into consideration all submissions made during this proceeding and determines that the following is the key issue to be addressed in this Regulatory Policy.
How can the Commission improve, where appropriate, its established determinations on the accessibility of
relay services (operator-assisted services that enable Canadians with hearing and speech disabilities to place and receive telephone calls);

emergency telecommunications services;

mobile wireless services;

customer information, service and support;

closed captioning (the audio component of a television program in textual form); and

described video and audio description (an audio narrative of a television program’s key visual elements)?

Legal framework
3. As a regulatory tribunal, the Commission must exercise its powers to implement the policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. The Commission must also act in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
4. Given the breadth of the broadcasting and telecommunications policy objectives contained in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act and section 7 of the Telecommunications Act and the directions contained in section 5 of the Broadcasting Act and section 47 of the Telecommunications Act, regulation of the broadcasting and telecommunications systems necessarily involves the balancing of competing objectives.
5. Thus, in assessing the reasonableness of the accommodations proposed in this proceeding, the Commission has considered the extent to which resources are available in the context of paragraph 3(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act and whether or not discrimination in the provision of or the charging of a rate for a telecommunications service is “unjust” within the meaning of subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.
6. The Commission has done so within the broader policy framework imposed by the governing legislation and, in the case of telecommunications, with reference to the Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives1 (the Policy Direction). In considering whether or not the proposed accommodations are reasonable, the Commission has also utilized leading Canadian human rights principles that recognize that equality is a fundamental value and central component of the public interest.
Policy Direction analysis of telecommunications determinations
7. As required under section 47 of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission must exercise its powers in accordance with any policy direction from the Governor in Council. The Policy Direction requires the Commission to implement the policy objectives in the Telecommunications Act in accordance with specific terms and criteria, including the reliance on market forces to the maximum extent feasible.
8. In all cases in this Regulatory Policy where the Commission has imposed regulatory requirements on telecommunications service providers (TSPs), it has done so where market forces cannot be relied upon to achieve the telecommunications policy objectives. In this regard the Commission considers that persons with disabilities generally are not able to influence the market sufficiently to obtain accessible telecommunications products and services. Where it has imposed regulatory requirements, the Commission has used measures that are efficient and proportionate to their purpose and that interfere with the operation of competitive market forces to the minimum extent necessary to meet the policy objectives.
9. The Commission considers that the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(g) and 7(h) of the Telecommunications Act are advanced by the telecommunications regulatory measures imposed in this regulatory policy.
10. The Commission has imposed the regulatory measures set out in this Regulatory Policy in a symmetrical and competitively neutral manner to the greatest extent possible.
Relay services
11. In previous decisions, the Commission has established a policy framework that recognizes the telecommunications needs of persons with hearing and speech disabilities. The Commission determined that Canadians with hearing and speech disabilities should have the same ability as other users of telephone services to communicate using such services. It also noted that relay services provide persons with hearing or speech disabilities with the technical means2 to communicate via a telephone call with other subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission required TSPs to provide relay service to their telephony customers – 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
12. The obligation to provide relay service originally applied to incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and, in a series of decisions,3 was extended to all local exchange carriers (LECs), including small ILECs (SILECs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), including wireless CLECs, resellers of local exchange services, and fixed and nomadic voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. These TSPs meet the obligation to provide relay service by providing the operator service in-house or by outsourcing the service to another provider (e.g. the local ILEC).
13. Several forms of relay services are available internationally, including Teletypewriter Relay Service (TTY Relay)4, Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), and Video Relay Service (Video Relay). Detailed descriptions of these services are set out in Appendix 1 to this Regulatory Policy. From the perspective of a person with a hearing or speech disability, the key difference between types of relay services is the method of communicating with the operator: TTY Relay and IP Relay are text-based services and Video Relay is a sign language-based service.
14. At present, the Commission’s requirement on TSPs to provide relay service applies to TTY Relay exclusively. Parties to this proceeding representing the interests of persons with hearing and speech disabilities submitted that due to the limitations and obsolescence of teletypewriter (TTY) technology, the provision of TTY Relay alone is no longer the best method for persons with hearing and speech disabilities to access telephone services. These parties submitted that IP Relay and Video Relay offer significant improvements over TTY Relay and requested that the Commission require TSPs to also provide IP Relay and/or Video Relay.
IP Relay
15. In all relay calls, the relay operator is an intermediary between the caller and the intended recipient of the call who transmits messages back and forth. In a TTY relay call, the relay operator transmits messages via TTY-based text conversation with a person with a hearing or speech disability and via voice conversation with a person without such a disability.
16. In an IP Relay call, the relay operator transmits messages via Internet Protocol (IP)-based text conversation with a person with a hearing or speech disability and via voice conversation with a person without such a disability. The person with a hearing or speech disability communicates using text with the relay operator via the Internet and accesses the IP Relay service through the IP Relay provider’s Web page or an Instant Messaging application using IP-based text messaging supported on a web-enabled device (mobile wireless phone, smartphone, web-capable telephone, etc.).5
17. From the perspective of a relay service user with a hearing or speech disability, IP Relay is a logical evolution of TTY Relay. Both TTY Relay and IP Relay are text-to-voice relay services; however, IP Relay is not subject to the same technological limitations as TTY Relay. IP Relay enables faster communication between the user with a disability and the relay operator (including calls to 9-1-1). IP Relay enables users to make relay calls using a web-capable device where there is Internet access. IP Relay allows users to see significantly more of the conversation on their computer screens than they can see with a TTY liquid crystal display (LCD) window. IP Relay allows users to print out and save conversations. IP Relay users can initiate multiple calls simultaneously and make conference calls. In light of the above, the Commission considers that the provision of IP Relay would provide significant benefit to TTY Relay users.
18. Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission finds that it is technically feasible for TSPs to provide IP Relay. The Commission also notes that TTY Relay costs have decreased since the TTY Relay service rates were last adjusted. The record shows that, on average, between the years 2004 and 2008, the ILECs collectively collected 6 $28.5 million per year and collectively spent $11.7 million per year to provide TTY Relay. During that period, the amount collected to provide TTY Relay has exceeded the amount required to provide it by an average of $16.8 million per year. The Commission finds that the recent excess in the rates collected to provide TTY Relay provides the funding to support the introduction and operation of IP Relay as an adjunct to TTY Relay via the same revenue stream.7
19. Accordingly, the Commission finds it appropriate to require the provision of IP Relay.
20. The Commission further finds it appropriate to continue to require the provision of TTY Relay to meet the specific needs of certain Canadians – particularly those who are DeafBlind, those without Internet access and those who access relay services using payphones.
Implementation of IP Relay
21. The Commission directs all LECs, including wireless CLECs, and VoIP providers that are required to provide TTY Relay to provide IP Relay, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by 21 July 2010. As with TTY Relay, TSPs may meet the obligation to provide IP Relay by providing the service directly or by outsourcing the provision of the service to a third-party. Further, by 21 July 2010, all references to “message relay service” in the existing relay service requirements set out in previous Commission decisions shall be read to include both TTY Relay and IP Relay.
22. By 21 April 2010 the ILECs are to file revised proposed relay service tariffs. The Commission does not expect the proposed tariffs to include rate increases.
23. The Commission considers that its power under section 24 of the Telecommunications Act to impose conditions on the offering and provision of telecommunications services on Canadian carriers is an appropriate means to impose requirements with respect to IP Relay. The Commission requires Canadian carriers, as a condition of the provision of service, to include in their contracts with resellers, a condition that resellers of local exchange services comply with the same obligations imposed on Canadian carriers.
Video Relay
24. Unlike TTY Relay or IP Relay, Video Relay enables communication with a relay operator using sign language. As such, Video Relay provides significant benefit to those persons with hearing and speech disabilities who communicate via sign language (e.g. American Sign Language (ASL) or Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ)).
25. The Commission considers that the record of this proceeding is insufficient to determine whether TSPs should be required to provide Video Relay. In particular, the record did not establish critical information such as the costs of providing this service, the size of the individual ASL or LSQ Video Relay user markets, or projected use. The record does indicate that the costs of providing a Video Relay service would be high, considering the need for high bandwidth and highly-skilled language interpretation in two sign languages.
26. Therefore, the Commission considers that further investigation into this matter is necessary to acquire accurate information pertaining to cost, user market size and projected use of this service. The Commission intends to assess whether a follow-up proceeding on Video Relay is warranted three years from the date of this Regulatory Policy. The Commission considers that information resulting from the Video Relay initiatives (trials) approved in Telecom Decision 2008-1 is vital to determining whether such a follow-up proceeding is warranted. Therefore, the Commission reiterates its determination that Bell Canada and TELUS Communications Company are to implement the initiatives by the date set out in that Decision (31 December 2011).8 The Commission considers that this timeframe will also allow for actual information pertaining to the use, cost and rates of IP Relay and TTY Relay (information that would be relevant to such a proceeding) to become available.
27. The Commission notes that any TSP may choose to provide Video Relay, on a regional or national basis, subject to Commission approval of a Video Relay tariff.
Emergency telecommunications services
28. Access to emergency telecommunications services, including 9-1-1, is critical to the health and safety of Canadians. The record of this proceeding identified several significant limitations of access to 9-1-1 for persons with hearing and speech disabilities.
29. At present, persons without hearing or speech disabilities communicate directly with 9-1-1 operators via voice calls. Most voice calls are compatible with Enhanced 9-1-1, which automatically provides the 9-1-1 operator with the caller’s location information and phone number. The automatic provision of this information improves the speed of the emergency response and enables the operator to resume communication with the caller if the call is disconnected.
30. In contrast, Canadians who cannot communicate clearly via a voice call, because of a hearing or speech disability, must establish 9-1-1 communications either through a direct TTY-to-TTY call or through a TTY Relay call. The record of the proceeding indicates that both of these approaches have certain limitations that affect the ability of persons with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate clearly, quickly, or directly with 9-1-1 operators. First, reliable direct TTY-to-TTY access to 9-1-1 service is not guaranteed in all regions of Canada, largely because not all Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are TTY-equipped. Second, there are inherent delays in using a TTY Relay operator to contact 9-1-1. Third, the caller’s location and phone number are not automatically transmitted to the PSAP during a relay call as it is the relay operator who makes the call.
31. The record of the proceeding indicates that access to 9-1-1 via IP Relay would allow for improved speed and flow of conversation with the relay operator during calls to 9-1-1 compared to such calls using TTY Relay. However, the record also shows that 9-1-1 IP Relay calls are likely to be subject to significant limitations of access to 9-1-1/Enhanced 9-1-1 services. These include the effects of power and Internet outages on the ability to access 9-1-1 services, as well as the requirement for callers to provide location information to the IP Relay operator.
32. Certain parties considered that access to emergency services by Canadians with hearing and speech disabilities could be improved if such Canadians were able to communicate with PSAPs using various forms of text messaging, including short message service (SMS), Instant Messaging (IM) or Real-Time Text (RTT). They proposed that such text messaging could take the form of text messages being sent directly to PSAPs or via relay operators.
33. The Commission considers that because the record of this proceeding does not sufficiently address the technical feasibility or financial viability of the proposals set out above, it is unable, at this time, to determine how best to improve access to 9-1-1 by persons with hearing or speech disabilities. Therefore, the Commission requests that the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) Emergency Services Working Group (ESWG) conduct an investigation and evaluation of the benefits, uses, and limitations of access to 9-1-1 services via various forms of text messaging, including SMS, IM, and RTT, as well as IP Relay, and file a report by 21 January 2010. The Commission notes that the PSAPs and PSAP advisory boards have been active participants in the ESWG and looks forward to their continued participation.
34. The report should address text messaging directly to PSAPs as well as text messaging to PSAPs using relay operators. The report should identify any impediments of access to 9-1-1 via these services and propose viable solutions by which such services could be used to improve access to 9-1-1 by persons with hearing and speech disabilities. The report should also address possible methods of associating the caller’s phone number and automatic location information with the communication with the 9-1-1 operator, methods of ensuring that communications directed to 9-1-1 reach the appropriate PSAP first, as well as the need for ease and speed of communication (without delay) between the persons with a disability and the 9-1-1 operator.9
35. The report should address any changes that would be required to TSP networks to enable such services, proposed timelines for implementation, and proposals as to how the costs of implementing such changes could be supported. To the extent technically feasible, these proposals should also identify the necessary technical and/or operational changes required by the PSAPs.
36. The Commission notes that, as TSPs, all IP Relay providers are required to provide access to 9-1-1 service. The Commission hereby requires TSPs that provide IP Relay to provide notification to their subscribers on the availability, characteristics and limitations of using IP Relay service to access 9-1-1 service, both initially at service commencement and at least once a year during service provision.
37. The notification must indicate all of the following: that access to 9-1-1 via IP Relay has certain limitations relative to Enhanced 9-1-1 service, which is available on most “traditional” telephone service; the circumstances in which access to 9-1-1 service would or would not be available; the nature of the access to 9-1-1 service that is provided and on what conditions; the material differences between the access to 9-1-1 service that is provided and traditional Enhanced 9-1-1 service; the measures that should be taken by a 9-1-1 caller as a result of such differences; and, the applicable limitations of liability. IP Relay service users should contact their Service Provider for any clarifications of the 9-1-1 notification.
38. The Commission, upon receiving and reviewing the above report, will determine if any follow-up actions are necessary to further address issues related to access to 9-1-1 via IP Relay and other services.
Other matters
39. Some parties requested that the Commission modify its existing payphone removal requirements such that no future payphone removals be permitted, in order to improve access to 9-1-1 by Canadians with disabilities. The Commission remains of the views set out in Telecom Decision 2004-47 with respect to the withdrawal of payphones. Parties also requested that the Commission modify the current payphone service requirements such that all payphones be TTY-equipped. The Commission addressed the accessibility of payphones in Telecom Decision 2004-47 and remains of the views set out therein.
Mobile wireless services
40. Consistent with its prior conclusions on the accessibility of wireline service,10 the Commission considers that the provision of a wireless service includes the means of accessing it. In order to attain access to wireless services, the terminal equipment (handsets) necessary to use the service must be accessible.
41. The record of this proceeding shows that some Canadian carriers that are wireless service providers (WSPs) currently offer handsets that are accessible by persons with disabilities. However, many WSPs do not. The lack of availability of accessible handsets is particularly acute for persons who are blind or have moderate to severe mobility or cognitive impairments.
42. The Commission considers that referring customers with disabilities to other handset suppliers would not be a reasonable accommodation by WSPs. When persons with disabilities are able to obtain accessible network-compatible devices from sources other than their WSP, such devices must generally be adapted for operation with the WSP’s network. Also, these customers may not obtain the necessary access to full technical support to address limitations in the use of wireless features and services supported by their handsets. Lastly, more cost is incurred as these customers do not benefit from pricing subsidies available in integrated service packages offered by their WSPs.
43. The record of this proceeding indicates that accessible mobile wireless handsets exist in other jurisdictions, such as the United States.
44. Accordingly, the Commission requests that, by 21 October 2009, all WSPs offer and maintain in their inventories at least one type of wireless mobile handset that will provide access to wireless service by persons who are blind and/or have moderate-to-severe mobility or cognitive disabilities.
45. In forbearing from the regulation of wireless service, the Commission retained its jurisdiction under section 24 and subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act. Accordingly, the Commission will, if necessary, consider imposing a section 24 condition on the offering or provision of wireless service, requiring WSPs to provide such handsets.
46. The Commission requests that WSPs consult with parties representing persons with disabilities on an ongoing basis to determine which handsets they will make available to address the needs of persons with disabilities. Also in consultation with these groups, the Commission requests that the service providers provide reasonable technical and lifecycle support of these handsets in order to address unique needs, such as those imposed by assistive technologies.
Customer information, service and support
47. The Commission considers that access to appropriate information, customer service and support in relation to telecommunications and broadcasting services allows customers with disabilities to make meaningful use of the services offered by TSPs and broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs).
48. As set out in Telecom Order 98-62, the Commission considers that the provision of certain information to customers is a telecommunications service under section 23 of the Telecommunications Act as it is incidental to the business of providing telecommunications services. In a 1996 Commission Letter Decision with respect to a specific cable distribution undertaking,11 the Commission noted that the provision to subscribers of bills and information concerning programs and channel line-ups is integral to the functions of a cable distribution undertaking. The Commission remains of the same view and considers this to be equally the case for all BDUs. In this regard, the Commission notes that customer service information ensures that subscribers may benefit fully from the service provided by the BDU.

49. Furthermore, the Commission considers that insofar as the TSPs’ and BDUs’ websites provide information and permit customers to contract services, pay bills, manage their accounts, and receive customer service and support, they are incidental to the business of providing telecommunications services and integral to the functions of a BDU.
50. The Commission has required that TSPs provide certain documents to persons with visual impairments in alternative formats, upon request.12 The record of this proceeding shows that some service providers also provide information on disability-specific products and services in various places, including on their websites, in their telephone directories and from their customer service representatives.
51. Nevertheless, the record demonstrates that in some cases persons with disabilities have reduced access to customer information because it is only provided in formats or through customer service channels that are not accessible to them. This creates barriers to access to telecommunications and broadcasting services.
52. The Commission considers it important that persons with disabilities have access to information on disability-specific products and services as well as general information that would improve access to telecommunications and broadcasting services and products available to all customers.
53. The Commission notes that service providers offer customer service through various channels. However, the Commission considers that websites and general call centres are particularly important sources of information and customer service.
54. The Commission also considers it important that any new regulatory requirements be as flexible as possible in order to recognize the different models of customer service that the various TSPs and BDUs employ.
55. The Commission has taken the above considerations into account in determining which measures would constitute reasonable accommodation. Those determinations are set out below.13
Promotion of disability-specific services and products
56. The Commission requires the TSPs and Class 1 and direct-to-home (DTH) BDUs to promote information on all of their disability-specific services and products, in the accessible manner(s) of their choice, by 21 July 2010.
57. The Commission encourages the TSPs and all BDUs to promote disability-specific information over their websites. Further, the Commission requires the TSPs and Class 1 and DTH BDUs to incorporate an easy-to-find home page link to the special needs/disability sections of their websites, if their websites include such sections, by 21 July 2010.
58. The Commission notes that service providers generally offer a limited number of service options and bundles that are suitable for persons with disabilities, particularly in relation to wireless services. The Commission encourages the TSPs to consult with customers with disabilities and the appropriate advocacy groups to develop suitable options and packages of optional features for persons with disabilities and to offer such options at the earliest possible opportunity.
Alternative formats for persons with visual impairments
59. The Commission considers that alternative format obligations apply to each customer, rather than to each household. Each qualifying customer who requests to receive information to which the obligations apply in an alternative format should be provided with such information in that format, even if another person in the same household has received the same information in a different format.
60. In relation to general consumer information, the Commission notes that it maintained certain information requirements14 in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-156 and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-304. The Commission considers that a number of these requirements consist of information on rates, terms and conditions of service,15 and therefore must be provided according to the current alternative format requirements.
61. Certain other information requirements that the Commission retained do not consist of information on the rates, terms and conditions of service. The Commission is of the preliminary view that the information subject to these requirements ought to be made available in alternative formats for persons with visual impairments on request.
62. The Commission therefore directs the TSPs to show cause, including cost justification, as to why the following should not be provided in alternative formats for persons with visual impairments, upon request: information on the National Do Not Call List, information on Bill Management Tools, notification of the removal of the last payphone in a community, the ILEC’s communications plans on local forbearance, information on dialling plan changes, and quality of service information. Comments must be received by 21 September 2009, and reply comments must be received by 21 October 2009.
Additional alternative formats for persons with disabilities
63. The Commission is of the view that there is insufficient evidence on the record of this proceeding to support a determination to require the provision of specific pieces of information in additional alternative formats such as sign language or plain language suitable for persons with cognitive disabilities.
64. Nevertheless, the Commission encourages the TSPs and BDUs to work with groups representing persons with disabilities to develop information in additional alternative formats, and requires the TSPs and Class 1 and DTH BDUs to report on progress to the Commission by 21 July 2010.
Websites
65. The Commission encourages the TSPs and all BDUs to adopt the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (W3C Guidelines) and to conduct user testing in order to make the customer service portions of their websites as accessible as possible for persons with disabilities. While they work towards this goal, the Commission requires TSPs and Class 1 and DTH BDUs to make the information on telecommunications and broadcasting services and products on their websites accessible to the point of providing a reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, with the service providers determining how to achieve this, by 23 July 2012.
66. The Commission considers that the following are examples of reasonable accommodations in relation to the customer service information on websites, provided that the resulting information is usable and comprehensible:
All textual content meets the W3C Guidelines, along with all new content. Existing audio-visual content that does not comply with the Guidelines should be described and accessible in another manner.

A website that satisfies the W3C Guidelines, where the only exceptions are linked to guidelines not commonly supported by older web browsers, or that offer equivalent or better accessibility through other means.

Maximum W3C Guidelines compliance, where persons with disabilities can obtain information on telecommunications and broadcasting services and products through the website. (Any inaccessibility would relate, for example, to a marketing factor or an application that is not relevant to customer service).

A text only version of the website, easily accessed from the home page, that complies with W3C Guidelines and provides information on services and products.

All high volume portions of a website meet the W3C Guidelines, with action plans to make further accessibility improvements at the earliest opportunity.

67. The Commission also considers that an audit of a TSP or BDU website with an action plan for timely improvements could constitute a reasonable accommodation in relation to the information on telecommunications and broadcasting services and products that is made available on the service provider’s website. At a minimum, this would include the following:
a basic audit using available online tools and manual checks on a representative number of web pages;

an associated action plan that outlines progressive improvements to the information on services and products;

user testing, conducted within two years, to identify further accessibility issues;

inclusion of the findings of the testing in the action plan; and

filing of the action plan and the results of user testing with the Commission by 23 July 2012.

68. Where customer service functions on websites are not accessible, persons with disabilities must not incur a charge or otherwise be disadvantaged if they use an alternate channel of customer service to access those functions. In addition, the Commission requires the TSPs and Class 1 and DTH BDUs to make accessible any customer service functions that are available solely over the service providers’ websites, by 23 July 2012.
General call centres
69. The Commission requires the TSPs and Class 1 and DTH BDUs to make their general call centres accessible to the point of providing a reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities by a) training customer service representatives in handling enquiries from persons with disabilities, and familiarizing them with the service providers’ products and services for persons with disabilities, by 21 July 2010; and b) making Interactive Voice Response systems16 accessible, by 21 July 2011. However, the Commission considers that a service provider with a disability call centre could meet this requirement by developing and implementing protocols for the appropriate transfer of calls to the call centre.
Implementation
70. The Commission considers that its power under section 24 of the Telecommunications Act to impose conditions on the offering and provision of telecommunications services on Canadian carriers is an appropriate means to impose requirements with respect to customer service accessibility. As such, pursuant to section 24 of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission requires Canadian carriers, as a condition of providing service, to implement the above requirements and to include in their contracts and other forms of agreements or arrangements with resellers, a condition that resellers comply with those requirements.
71. In regard to BDUs, the Commission will consider imposing requirements on Class 1 and DTH BDUs in the form of conditions of licence at the time of their licence renewal if such requirements are necessary to achieve the Commission’s goals. While the Commission does not intend to impose requirements on exempt BDUs at this time, it will monitor complaints to determine if a future requirement may be appropriate.
Closed captioning
72. Television broadcasters provide access to television programming for persons who are deaf and hard of hearing through closed captioning.
Quantity
73. The Commission’s Closed Captioning Policy17 sets out the Commission’s goal of moving toward the full captioning of all television programming. Accordingly, the policy states that television broadcasters must caption 100 percent of their programs aired during the broadcast day, excluding advertising and promotional announcements (promos).
74. The record demonstrates that many advertisements are captioned even though it is not required. The Commission considers that there is little that prevents sponsorship messages and promos from being captioned. With respect to the overnight hours, many programs aired during the overnight period are captioned even though there is no requirement in this regard.
75. Accordingly, the Commission expects broadcasters to ensure that advertising, sponsorship messages and promos are captioned by the end of their next licence term, at which time the Commission will determine whether or not a condition of licence should be imposed. The Commission notes that, as indicated in Broadcasting Decision 2009-279, the next licence term for the television stations operated by CTV Television Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership and Sun TV Company as well the Citytv stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited will expire in 2010, and the licences for the stations operated by TVA Group Inc. will expire in 2011. For the OMNI television stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited, as well as those operated by RNC MEDIA Inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, which will be renewed for six and seven year terms, the Commission intends to amend the conditions of licence related to closed captioning in five years pursuant to section 9(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act, if it considers that there is a need. Further, when captions are available, the Commission expects broadcasters to provide viewers with a closed captioned version of all programming aired during the overnight period. The Commission will review licensees’ performance in this regard at their next licence renewal.
76. The record further shows that captioning technology, including voice recognition software – which is used extensively in captioning French-language programming – has greatly improved and should no longer be considered a technology in development.
77. Accordingly, the Commission no longer considers captioning technology as a factor when considering requests by broadcasters, including French-language broadcasters, for exceptions to the policy that generally requires that 100 percent of programming be closed captioned.
Quality
78. In the Closed Captioning policy, the Commission requested that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) coordinate the establishment of French- and English-language working groups (the Working Groups) to develop and implement universal standards for closed captioning and develop concrete solutions with respect to other aspects of captioning quality. The preliminary reports of the Working Groups were placed on the public record of this proceeding and parties were provided an opportunity to comment.
Mandate and operation of the Working Groups
79. The Commission considers that it is important that the Working Groups continue and that their membership be extended to better reflect the interests of users of captioning and BDUs.
80. Accordingly, the Commission extends the mandate of the Working Groups and directs them to file the following for approval by the Commission:
administrative procedures, including:
a breakdown of costs and funding for each group as a means to address the funding of high cost elements of the Working Groups’ activities. The report should reflect the fact that not all participants have the same financial resources or are affected equally by the standards developed by the Working Groups.

the means by which meetings are conducted and facilitated, taking into account the Canadian Association of the Deaf’s concern that it has been unable to participate as an equal member in the meetings of the English-language Working Group.

a revised membership composition for the Working Groups that includes additional representatives from user groups as well as BDU/satellite relay distribution undertaking (SRDU) representation. The CRTC will continue to participate in the Working Groups.

an action plan with specific timelines regarding each of the deliverables set out in this Regulatory Policy.

Proposed standards
81. The record of the proceeding demonstrates that some of the proposed standards were undisputed, some were disputed, and some standards still need to be developed. The Commission considers that the undisputed standards nonetheless require further attention. The Commission directs the Working Groups to address the standards set out below.
Pop-on versus roll-up captions
82. While roll-up captions are used in programming such as live local news, discussion programs, variety shows and sports, evidence from the record indicates that pop-on captioning is preferable for pre-recorded programming such as dramas and documentaries. However, some U.S. programming that is broadcast at the same time by English-language Canadian broadcasters in order to take advantage of simultaneous substitution is provided with roll-up captions that would not be practical to reformat. Broadcasters do, however, have control over the format of captioning in Canadian programming.
83. Accordingly, the Commission directs the English-language Working Group to amend the standards to stipulate that all Canadian pre-recorded programming must be captioned in pop-on format.
Speed of captions
84. The record of the proceeding establishes that captioning – particularly roll-up captioning – is often not understandable because it is too fast. The Working Groups did not provide evidence supporting the proposed speed for pop-on captions, nor did they propose a speed for roll-up captions.
85. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Working Groups to:
review and revise the standards for speed of pop-on captioning;
establish appropriate standards for speed of roll-up captioning; and
establish an appropriate standard with respect to the speed of captioning of children’s programming.

Blocked captions
86. The issue of blocked captions18 was not addressed in the reports of the Working Groups, as was requested in the Closed Captioning Policy. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Working Groups to develop standards to deal with blocked captions.
Sign-language interpretation in emergency messages
87. The Commission directs the English-language Working Group to review its emergency broadcast standards to determine whether it is appropriate to include a provision that a sign-language message be broadcast during emergency programming. The Commission notes that such a provision is included in the proposed French-language standards.
Error rate
88. The record of the proceeding establishes that an acceptable error rate must be established and applied in order to determine if the quality of closed captioning is improving.
89. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Working Groups to determine an acceptable error rate for closed captioning in live and pre-recorded programming and to
define what constitutes an error and develop a methodology for determining what an acceptable error rate would be; and
include in their standards a requirement for broadcasters to correct captioning errors in live programming before such programs, or segments within those programs, are rebroadcast.

Standards for digital broadcasting
90. The record of the proceeding demonstrates that different standards are needed for the production and delivery of programming in a digital environment, including high definition (HD). Given that the Commission is requiring broadcasting in digital format by August 2011,19 it is of the view that it is important to establish captioning standards for digital broadcasting.
91. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Working Groups to develop standards for delivery of closed captioning in a digital environment, including in HD.
Validation of standards
92. The Closed Captioning Policy stated that the proposed standards developed by the Working Groups should be accompanied by evidence demonstrating that they are acceptable to users of captioning.
93. The record of the proceeding demonstrates that the methodology that the CAB employed to validate the proposed standards could have been more rigorous. In particular, the Commission notes the relatively small size of the sample.
94. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Working Groups to provide:
concrete evidence that the standards they develop with respect to speed of captioning, digital captioning and error rate are acceptable to users of captioning by way of a methodologically sound validation exercise; and
a description of the methodology employed and evidence that the results achieved are statistically valid and representative of the user communities. Children should be included in validation exercises for speed of captioning in children’s programming.

Conditions applicable to all standards
95. The Commission considers that, for standards to be effective and enforceable, they must be specific and measurable. They must also include a useful and complete definition of terms.
96. Accordingly, all standards, including those that were undisputed in this proceeding and new standards to be developed must:
contain imperative language and concrete examples of what is and is not acceptable;
include a definition of terms, with visual illustrations as examples where appropriate; and
eliminate inconsistent information and information not pertinent to the standards.

Time frame
97. The Commission directs the television industry’s French- and English-language Working Groups to file the information set out above by the following deadlines for Commission approval:
information regarding the mandate and operation of the Working Groups – 21 October 2009
revised versions of the undisputed standards to reflect the conditions applicable to all standards in paragraph 96 above, new standards for blocked captions; revisions to the English-language standards for the use of pop-on versus roll-up captioning and the use of sign language during emergency messages – 21 January 2010;
proposed and validated standards pertaining to speed of captioning, including children’s programming; blocked captions; and error rate – 21 July 2010; and
proposed and validated standards for digital broadcasting – 21 January 2011.

Implementation
98. The Commission intends to require all television licensees to adhere to the standards it has approved through conditions of licence that will be applied at the time of licence renewal. In the meantime, the Commission expects television licensees to adhere to the standards as soon as possible. The Commission notes that, as indicated in Broadcasting Decision 2009-279, the licence terms for the television stations operated by CTV Television Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership and Sun TV Company as well the Citytv stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited will expire in 2010, and the licences for the stations operated by TVA Group Inc. will expire in 2011. For the OMNI television stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited, as well as those operated by RNC MEDIA Inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, which will be renewed for six and seven year terms, the Commission intends to amend the conditions of licence related to closed captioning in five years pursuant to section 9(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act, if it considers that there is a need.
Monitoring of captioning
99. The Commission agrees with the recommendation of the Working Groups that each television licensee develop and submit, at the time of licence renewal, its own mechanisms and procedures related to the monitoring and quality control of closed captioning.
100. Accordingly, at the time of licence renewal, the Commission intends to impose a requirement that licensees put in place a monitoring system to ensure that closed captioning is included in the broadcast signal and that captioning reaches the viewer in its original form. The Commission, however, expects television licensees to implement such a system as soon as possible. The Commission notes that, as indicated in Broadcasting Decision 2009-279, the licence terms for the television stations operated by CTV Television Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership and Sun TV Company as well the Citytv stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited will expire in 2010, and the licences for the stations operated by TVA Group Inc. will expire in 2011. For the OMNI television stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited, as well as those operated by RNC MEDIA Inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, which will be renewed for six and seven year terms, the Commission intends to amend the conditions of licence related to closed captioning in five years pursuant to section 9(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act, if it considers that there is a need.
101. It further requires television licensees to develop and submit, at the time of licence renewal, mechanisms and procedures related to quality control of closed captioning, including procedures to ensure that closed captioning is present throughout the entire program. These mechanisms and procedures should also set out the means by which the licensee intends to ensure that captioning errors are corrected before programming is rebroadcast.
Described video and audio description
102. Television broadcasters provide access to television programming for those with visual impairments through two means: described video20 and audio description.21
Amount of described video
103. In 2001, the Commission began to impose conditions of licence requiring minimum levels of described programming on licensees of major English-language conventional television stations.22 These conditions require licensees to broadcast two hours per week of Canadian priority programming that is described during prime time in the early years of the licence term, ramping up to four hours by the end of the licence term. At least 50 percent of these hours must consist of original programming. Described programming must consist of dramas, documentaries or children’s programming. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) French-language and English-language and television networks currently do not have conditions of licence requiring the provision of described video.23 Starting in 2004, the Commission has, at the time of licence renewal, imposed similar conditions of licence on those analog and Category 1 English-language pay and specialty services whose schedule is comprised mainly of programming that lends itself well to described video, i.e. drama, documentaries and children’s programming.24
104. The Commission is of the view that persons with disabilities should be able to access programming with described video from both the public and private sectors in French and English. The Commission further considers that basic levels of described video should be available on a wide variety of services. The Commission notes that the shortage of programming with described video is particularly acute for French-language programming since, up until now, none had been required and none had been provided.
105. During this proceeding, broadcasters submitted that the costs of providing described video are significant. In assessing whether or not resources are available for the provision of described video, the Commission has considered the costs and the benefits of providing described video and the difficult economic environment in which television broadcasters currently operate.
106. Accordingly, the Commission intends to apply, through condition of licence, the existing described video requirements not only to English-language televisions services operated by private broadcasters, but also to French-language services operated by private broadcasters and English-language and French-language television services operated by the CBC. As a result of the approach set out in this paragraph, a minimum of 15 additional English-language and 5 additional French-language television services will provide described video.
107. The Commission intends to impose requirements with respect to described video on additional licensees, as described above, at the time of licence renewal so that it can take into account the specific circumstances of the licensee, but encourages licensees to reach these levels of described video as soon as possible.
108. Currently conventional broadcasters must, according to their conditions of licence, fulfil obligations to provide described video with drama, documentaries and children’s programming, which lend themselves well to described video. In order to provide these broadcasters with a measure of flexibility and to take into account requests from persons with disabilities for a wider of choice of described programming, the Commission considers it appropriate to add two more categories of programming to those that licensees of conventional television stations may use to fulfil their commitments for described video: 9 Variety and 11 General entertainment and human interest. Therefore, the conditions of licence imposed on conventional television stations from now on will allow them to fulfil their commitments for described video with programming from the following categories: 2(b) Long-form documentary; 7(a) Ongoing Dramatic Series; 7(b) Ongoing comedy series (sitcoms); 7(c) Specials, mini-series or made-for-TV feature films; 7(d) Theatrical feature films aired on TV; 7(e) Animated television programs and films; 7(g) Other drama; 9 Variety; and 11 General entertainment and human interest, as well as programming targeted to children. Conventional television stations that currently have conditions of licence with respect to described video may apply to amend their conditions of licence to take advantage of this flexibility.
109. The Commission will continue to monitor the economic situation faced by television broadcasters. When the situation improves and additional resources are available, the Commission intends to conduct a further proceeding to consider expanding the types of specialty services to which it will apply requirements for described video as well as the minimum amount of described video that licensees must provide. At that time, the Commission will also consider amending its regulations to require all licensees that offer programming in applicable genres to provide described video.
110. For those television licensees that currently have a condition of licence requiring them to distribute four hours per week of programming with described video, this requirement will be maintained.
111. The Commission is also of the view that other means of increasing amounts of described video are available. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that producers and broadcasters work together to incorporate described video into the production process. It further recommends that the Canada Media Fund make the production of described video a criterion for funding television programs and that other production funds do likewise. The Commission reminds broadcasters and producers that the production of described video is eligible for federal and provincial tax credits.
112. The Commission acknowledges the efforts by the National Broadcast Reading Service to provide French-language programming on The Accessible Channel, and encourages it to continue its efforts in this regard.
113. The Commission is placing a list of programming services that are required to offer described video on its website. This list will assist BDUs to ensure that they pass through described video of the applicable services. It will also help individuals and groups representing persons with disabilities to determine the extent to which described video is available in Canada and to assess the success of the initiatives set out in this document.
Access to described video
114. The Commission is of the view that programming with described video is not available to persons with disabilities, as envisaged by section 3(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act, unless a means to access it is provided. The Commission is further of the view that subscribers who are visually impaired require a simple means to access described programming.
115. The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations require that BDUs pass through described video signals. The Commission has, however, relieved most BDUs of the obligation to pass through described video on an analog basis. Exceptions with respect to the requirement for BDUs to pass through described video on a digital basis are set to expire at the end of August 2009.25
116. The Commission is of the view that all BDUs possess the means to pass though described video, at least in open format,26 and considers it essential that BDUs pass through described video signals received from broadcasters to subscribers.
117. Accordingly, with respect to access to described video, the Commission reminds all Class 1 BDUs, DTH undertakings and SRDUs that they must pass through the described video of all programming services that they distribute no later than 1 September 2009, in accordance with the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations and the Commission’s policy set out in Broadcasting Public Notice 2007-101. The Commission directs all licensees of Class 1 BDUs, DTH undertakings and SRDUs to confirm their compliance with this requirement no later than 1 September 2009. The Commission intends to pursue instances of non-compliance.
118. The Commission intends to require BDUs, by condition of licence to be imposed at the time of licence renewal, to provide one or more simple means of accessing described programming, whether in an open or embedded format, that requires little or no visual acuity. The Commission, however, encourages licensees to achieve this goal as soon as possible.
119. The Commission further encourages BDUs to promote the availability of complimentary set-top boxes. As indicated in Broadcasting Public Notice 2007-101, complimentary set-top boxes must be provided to subscribers who are blind or have a visual impairment by those Class 1 cable BDUs that have been relieved of the requirement to pass through described video on an analog basis. These set-top boxes enable those subscribers to access described video on a digital basis.
120. With respect to access to television in general, the Commission encourages BDUs to procure and offer at least one set-top box and remote that is accessible to persons with vision and fine motor skill disabilities, where applicable. It further encourages BDUs to continue to work with vendors to develop set-top box software that provides increased font sizes, audio prompts or other audio information.
Awareness of described programming
121. During this proceeding, some parties submitted that subscribers need to know what programs include described video, and when those programs will be aired. The Commission considers that this information should be provided, and that this could be accomplished through various means such as audio announcements and logos to identify described programming, and promotion of described programs in program listings.
122. Accordingly, the Commission expects:
broadcasters to display a standard described video logo and air an audio announcement indicating the presence of described video before the broadcast of each described program. The Commission encourages broadcasters to repeat the announcement and logo following each commercial break;

broadcasters to make information available regarding the described programs that they will broadcast; and

licensees of BDUs to develop one or more means of identifying programming with described video in their electronic program guides. This could include an audio tone, a visual indicator, or the offer of an audio electronic program guide.

123. The Commission considers that it would be useful to create a working group to develop solutions to issues related to subscriber access to described video and facilitate the development and rollout of initiatives to increase the awareness of described video.
124. Accordingly, the Commission will form a working group with representatives from the distribution and broadcasting sectors. The group will have a 12-month mandate to develop recommendations for improving the accessibility and promotion of described programming.
125. The working group will be tasked to develop common practices and other solutions that will improve the accessibility of described programming including:
facilitating the pass-through of described programming in embedded format;
providing one or more simple means for viewers to access embedded described video;
resolving any instances of audio loss associated with embedded described video; and
ensuring that information regarding described programming is made available in print and online programming listings and electronic programming guides.

Audio description
126. Television broadcasters are currently expected to provide audio description. However, the record of the proceeding indicates that audio description is not being provided in all cases, or in many instances is inadequate. The Commission considers that this is particularly unacceptable in the case of news broadcasts and is of the view that this must be rectified immediately. The Commission considers that some of the problems could be addressed by replacing the music background with a voiceover for weather reports, stock market updates, and sports scores. Measures to improve and increase the amount of audio description could include the training of staff to increase awareness, updating production manuals and policies and assigning responsibility for audio description to appropriate staff.
127. The Commission considers that solutions to the problems of the provision and quality of audio description do not require significant resources and intends to require television licensees to implement audio description by conditions of licence at the time of their next licence renewal. The Commission notes that, as indicated in Broadcasting Decision 2009-279, the next licence term for the television stations operated by CTV Television Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership and Sun TV Company, as well the Citytv stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited will expire in 2010, and the licences for the stations operated by TVA Group Inc. will expire in 2011. For the OMNI television stations operated by Rogers Broadcasting Limited, as well as those operated by RNC MEDIA Inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, which will be renewed for six and seven year terms, the Commission intends to impose conditions of licence related to audio description in five years pursuant to section 9(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act.
128. The Commission requires licensees to identify, at the time of licence renewal, the measures they will put in place to effectively implement audio description.
Pass-through of closed captioning and described video broadcast in new media
129. The Commission encourages broadcasters to pass through closed captioning and described video when their programming is broadcast in new media.
Conclusion
130. The Commission wishes to thank all who participated in this proceeding. It appreciates the effort and research reflected in the written submissions and presentations as well as the spirit of cooperation exhibited by participants.
Secretary General
Related documents
Follow-up to Telecom Decision 2008-105 – Retail quality of service regime in non-forborne markets for ILECs with over 25,000 NAS, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-304, 25 May 2009

Renewal of the broadcasting licences for private conventional television stations considered at the 27 April 2009 Gatineau public hearing – Initial decisions and scope of subsequent policy proceeding, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-279, 15 May 2009

Revised regulatory requirements to provide information to customers, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-156, 24 March 2009

Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services to persons with disabilities – Notice of consultation, Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2008-8/Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-8, 10 June 2008

Call for comments on priorities regarding the review of social and other non-economic regulatory measures – Notice of consultation, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-1, 22 January 2008

Distribution of video description by Class 1 cable broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDU), direct-to-home BDUS and satellite relay distribution undertakings, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2007-101, 12 September 2007

New digital specialty described video programming undertaking; Licence amendments; Issuance of various mandatory distribution orders, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2007-246, 24 July 2007

A new policy with respect to closed captioning, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2007-54, 17 May 2007

Determinations regarding certain aspects of the regulatory framework for over-the-air television, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2007-53, 17 May 2007

Access to certain telecommunications services by persons who are blind, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-20, 30 March 2007

Amendment to the Exemption order respecting closed circuit video programming undertakings, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-132, 16 October 2006

Follow-up to Emergency service obligations for local VoIP service providers, Decision 2005-21 – Customer notification requirements, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-61, 20 October 2005

Aliant Telecom Inc. – Application to increase the capital cost of its service improvement plan and related matters, Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-74, 16 November 2004

Access to pay telephone service, Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-47, 15 July 2004

Introduction to Broadcasting Decisions CRTC 2004-6 to 2004-27 renewing the licences of 22 specialty services, Broadcasting Public Notice 2004-2, 21 January 2004

Call-Net Part VII Application – Promotion of local residential competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-4, 27 January 2004

Central office floor space information changes, Telecom Order CRTC 2003-514, 18 December 2003

Amendment to web site addresses, Telecom Order CRTC 2003-353, 2 September 2003

Provision of telecommunications services to customers in multi-dwelling units, Telecom Decision 2003-45, 30 June 2003

Extending the availability of alternative formats to consumers who are blind, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-13, 8 March 2002

The Coalition for Better Co-location – Part VII application for general relief with respect to the co-location regime, Order CRTC 2001-780, 26 October 2001

Alternative formats for a person who is blind, Order CRTC 2001-690, 31 August 2001

Access to Bell Canada’s SimplyOne by persons who are blind, Order CRTC 2001-164, 26 February 2001

Access to Microcell’s Fido-related service by persons who are blind, Order CRTC 2001-163, 26 February 2001

Bell Canada’s replacement for tariff subscription service approved for Internet delivery, Order CRTC 2000-552, 16 June 2000

Telecom Order CRTC 98-626, 26 June 1998

Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 96-1191, 29 October 1996

Review of the general regulations of the federally regulated terrestrial telecommunications common carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 86-7, 26 March 1986

This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca.
Appendix 1 to Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-430
Relay services
Message relay services are operator services that provide persons with hearing or speech disabilities with the technical means to communicate via telephone call with persons without such disabilities. All relay calls require three parties: the caller, the intended recipient of the call and the relay operator. The person with a hearing or speech disability may be the caller or the intended recipient of the relay call. The operator translates information between the caller and the intended recipient of the call. Several forms of relay services are available internationally. This proceeding addressed three of these: Teletypewriter Relay Service (TTY Relay), Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), and Video Relay Service (Video Relay).
TTY Relay, also called “message relay service,” is a text-based relay service. In a TTY Relay call, the relay operator communicates with the person with a hearing or speech disability via a teletypewriter (TTY) and with the person without a hearing or speech disability via voice. The person with a disability accesses the service by using a TTY connected to wireline telephone service. The person without a disability dials a toll free number to reach the relay operator using any telephone service. While a TTY is required for the person with a disability to access the relay service, the TTY itself is not part of the relay service offering.
IP Relay is also a text-based service. In an IP Relay call, the relay operator communicates with the person with a hearing or speech disability via text and the person without a hearing or speech disability via voice. The person with a disability accesses the service by using any device capable of Internet access to reach the relay provider’s website and/or text messaging application to reach the relay operator. The person without a disability dials a toll free number to reach the relay operator using any telephone service. While access to the Internet and a device capable of Internet access are necessary for the person with a disability to communicate with the IP Relay operator, these two items are not part of the relay service offering.
Video Relay is a sign language-based relay service. In a Video Relay call, the relay operator communicates with the person with a disability via sign language and the person without a disability via voice. The person with a disability accesses the service by using any device capable of both high-speed (broadband) Internet access and video conferencing to reach the relay provider’s website and/or video conferencing application to reach the relay operator. The person without a disability dials a toll free number to reach the relay operator using any telephone service. While access to a high-speed Internet connection and an Internet Protocol (IP) video camera enabled device capable of high-speed Internet access are necessary for the person with a disability to communicate with the Video Relay operator, these items are not part of the relay service offering.
Footnotes
1 P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006

2 The “technical means” is the provision of the relay operator – a third party in a call between a person with and a person without a hearing or speech disability who transmits information back and forth (i.e. “relays” information) between the caller and the person called.
3 In Telecom Decision 1985-29, the Commission required a TSP to provide relay service to its customers in its serving territory and extended this obligation to the other ILECs in subsequent decisions. In Telecom Decision 1997-8, the Commission required all LECs (ILECs, SILECs, and CLECs) to provide relay service and extended this obligation to wireless CLECs in Telecom Order 98-1. In Telecom Decision 2005-28, the Commission required all VoIP providers (fixed and nomadic) to provide relay service. The Commission notes that resellers providing local exchange services are required to meet certain of the service requirements that the Commission imposes on LECs, including relay service, by virtue of the underlying LEC’s obligations, as set out in Telecom Decision
1997-8.

4 In previous decisions, the Commission has referred to TTY Relay as “message relay service” or “MRS.”

5 For example, an IP Relay provider may provide its relay service users with hearing or speech disabilities with the “contact” or “buddy” information of its relay call centre. In that case, the relay service user can communicate via text (i.e. Instant Messaging) with an operator after adding the call centre to his or her Instant Messaging “contact” or “buddy” lists.
6 I.e., via the retail and wholesale TTY-RS rates that the Commission regulates. The Commission does not regulate the TTY Relay service rates charged by other service providers.

7 In addition, the Commission notes that, in Telecom Decision 2008-1, it approved the use of deferral account funds for the purpose of supporting certain IP Relay start up costs incurred by Bell Canada, TELUS Communications Company (TCC), and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel).
8 See Commission Letters to Bell and TELUS, Accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services, Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-430, 21 July 2009.

9 The Commission notes that while it does not have jurisdiction over PSAPs, it is not precluded from taking steps to ensure that the 9-1-1 telecommunications networks can support text messaging to 9-1-1.

10 See Telecom Decision 2007-20.

11 The Commission concluded that bills, subscriber information regarding rates and services, as well as channel and programming information should be provided, upon request, in alternative formats accessible to visually impaired subscribers. The Commission also concluded that adequate mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that visually impaired subscribers are aware of the availability of this information.

12 See Telecom Decision 2002-13. Also see the list of related documents. Persons who are blind or visually impaired have the option to receive bills, bill inserts and information setting out the rates, terms and conditions of a service in an alternative billing format, for example in Braille, large print, or electronic version. Alternative billing formats must be made available, upon request, as a condition of providing any telecommunications service to a consumer.

13 The implementation of the Commission’s determinations is outlined in paragraphs 70 and 71.
14 An information requirement is an obligation imposed on a TSP to provide information to its customers about a regulatory measure or related to its telecommunications services.

15 This includes terms of service – the general obligation on ILECs and CLECs to provide consumers with information about their telecommunications services, including, at a minimum, the information on the policies set out in Telecom Decisions 86-7 and 97-8, respectively; the general obligation on TSPs to inform their customers of privacy features and their limitations; and the general obligation on TSPs to inform consumers about their policies regarding annoying and offensive telephone calls.
16 An Interactive Voice Response system is a technology that allows a computer to detect voice and touch tones using a normal phone call and replaces customer service representatives for the portion of the phone call that uses the system.

17 Set out in Broadcasting Public Notice 2007-54.

18 Blocked captions occur when captions are covered by or are covering other on-screen information.

19 Broadcasting Public Notice 2007-53

20 Described video is a technique whereby a narrator provides a description of a program’s key visual elements so that persons who are blind or have visual impairments can understand what is occurring on the screen.

21 Audio description occurs when announcers read aloud the textual and graphic information that is displayed on the screen during information programs.

22 The French-language TVA network is expected to provide described video, but has no condition of licence requiring it.

23 Even though it is not subject to a condition of licence, the CBC English-language television network provided an average of 16 hours a week of described programming in 2007/2008. On the other hand, the CBC French-language television network did not report any hours of described programming in 2007-2008.

24 Broadcasting Public Notice 2004-2.
25 Broadcasting Public Notice 2007-101

26 There are two means to pass through described video. One is to embed the audio track containing the descriptions with the television program’s video and primary audio track. This approach, which is known as “embedded described video,” requires a means to select the audio track that provides the descriptions. A person with a visual impairment turns on the described video to hear the descriptions. Alternatively, the audio track containing described video can be distributed together with the original audio and video on a dedicated channel. This is known as “open format described video.” Under this approach, described video is always turned on and can be heard by all tuning into the program.

Date Modified: 2009-07-21

Share This Page