ARCHIVED - Transcript
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages
Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.
In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT
LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT / SUJET:
Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of
telecommunications and broadcasting services to
persons with disabilities /
Questions en suspens concernant l'accessibilité des
services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion pour
les personnes handicapées
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
November 17, 2008 Le 17 novembre 2008
Transcripts
In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages
Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be
bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members
and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of
Contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded
verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in
either of the official languages, depending on the language
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès‑verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.
Canadian Radio‑television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of
telecommunications and broadcasting services to
persons with disabilities /
Questions en suspens concernant l'accessibilité des
services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion pour
les personnes handicapées
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Leonard Katz Chairperson / Président
Elizabeth Duncan Commissioner / Conseillère
Timothy Denton Commissioner / Conseiller
Suzanne Lamarre Commissioner / Conseillère
Candice Molnar Commissioner / Conseillère
Stephen Simpson Commissioner / Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Sylvie Bouffard Secretary / Secretaire
Kathleen Taylor Hearing Manager /
Gérante de l'audience
Martine Vallée Director, Social Policy /
Directrice, Politiques
Sheila Perron Hearing Officer /
Agente d'audiences
Lori Pope Legal Counsel /
Véronique Lehoux Conseillères juridiques
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
November 17, 2008 Le 17 novembre 2008
- iv -
TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:
Canadian National Institute for the Blind 8 / 42
Centre québécois de la déficience auditive 57 / 331
Rothschild & Co. and Stubbs Solutions 102 / 537
Québecor Media inc. au nom de 142 / 803
Vidéotron ltée et de Groupe TVA inc.
Canadian Association of Broadcasters 217 / 1206
Gatineau, Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)
‑‑‑ Upon commencing on Monday, November 17, 2008
at 0932 / L'audience débute le lundi 17 novembre
2008 à 0932
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this public hearing.
2 My name is Leonard Katz and I am the Vice‑Chairman of Telecommunications for the CRTC. I will be presiding over this hearing.
3 Joining me on the panel are my colleagues: starting from a far left, Stephen Simpson, Regional Commissioner for British Columbia and the Yukon; Candice Molnar, Regional Commissioner for Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and myself. Starting from my far right, Elizabeth Duncan, Commissioner for the Atlantic Region; Timothy Denton, National Commissioner; and Suzanne Lamarre, Regional Commissioner for Québec.
4 The Commission team assisting us is seated at the tables to my left. The team includes: Kathleen Taylor, Hearing Manager and Manager, Accessibility; Martine Vallée, Director, Social Policy; Lori Pope and Véronique Lehoux, legal counsel; and Sylvie Bouffard, Hearing Secretary.
5 Please speak with Ms Bouffard if you have any questions with regard to hearing procedures.
6 C'est la première fois que le Conseil tient une instance d'envergure sur l'accessibilité des personnes handicapées aux services de communication. Il s'agit également d'une de nos premières instances en mode de convergence. Nous allons évaluer, à la fois, l'accessibilité des services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion, y compris ceux qui sont fournis dans l'Internet et par l'entremise d'appareils mobiles.
7 Just to repeat, this is the first time that the Commission has held a comprehensive proceeding on the accessibility of communication services to persons with disabilities. It is also one of our first converse proceedings as we will be considering the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services, including those provided over the Internet and through mobile devices.
8 Canada's Telecommunications Policy objectives include facilitating the development of a system of safeguards, enriches and strengthens the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions. Another objective is to respond to the economic and social requirements of those who use telecommunications services.
9 On the broadcasting side, the policy objectives include making sure that the Canadian broadcasting system not only serves the needs and interests of Canadians, but also reflects their circumstances and aspirations.
10 Another objective is that programming accessible by persons with disabilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available.
11 In this regard, the CRTC has issued a number of decisions to support these objectives over the past several years. For instance, telecommunications service providers are required to offer message relay services and free local directory assistance to persons with disabilities. They are also required to provide, upon request, their billing statement and certain inserts in alternative formats.
12 In 2007 we established a new policy requiring French and English language television broadcasters to caption all their programs during the broadcast day. This policy will be implemented at the upcoming licence renewals in 2009.
13 We also, last year I believe it was, licensed a TAC accessibility channel which should be going on air shortly.
14 In addition, the Commission has asked the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to develop universal standards and to propose technical solutions to improve the quality of captioning.
15 The CAB will file its report by November 30th and parties will have an opportunity to comment on them before January 12th as part of this proceeding.
16 Plus tôt cette année, nous avons approuvé le Code sur la représentation équitable. Le Code établit des normes claires en ce qui concerne la représentation des personnes handicapées, et son respect est une condition de licence pour tous les radiodiffuseurs.
17 At this hearing, the Panel will focus on the following areas: telecommunications relay services, captioning, described video, customer service and support and emergency services.
18 The Panel will make an announcement on Thursday regarding whether the hearing will be extended into the week of November 24th.
19 Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to note that the CRTC is working to update its website in order to meet the government's Common Look and Feel 2.0 requirements by December 31st of this year. As of that date our website will be compliant with the accessibility guidelines developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
20 Official documents that contain images currently published by the CRTC, including alternate text, and are available in alternate format upon request.
21 I would now invite the Hearing Secretary, Sylvie Bouffard, to explain the procedures we will be following.
22 Madam Secretary...?
23 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bonjour à tous.
24 My name is Sylvie Bouffard and I will be the Hearing Secretary for the duration of the consultation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to come and see me during breaks and lunches.
25 Before beginning, I would like to go over a few housekeeping matters to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing.
26 Please note that the Commission Members may ask questions in either English or French. You can obtain an interpretation receiver from the Commissionaire at the entrance.
27 Le service d'interprétation simultanée est disponible durant cette audience. Vous pouvez vous procurer un récepteur auprès du commissionnaire à l'entrée. L'interprétation anglaise se trouve au canal 7, et l'interprétation française au canal 8.
28 English interpretation is available on Channel 7 and French on Channel 8.
29 When you are in the hearing room we would ask that you completely turn off your cell phones and blackberries as they are an unwelcome distraction and as they will cause interference on the internal communication system used by our translators and interpreters. Please note that if you leave them on vibration mode, they will still cause interference.
30 We would appreciate your cooperation in this regard throughout the hearing.
31 Starting tomorrow, we will begin each morning at 9:00 a.m. We will take a 1‑1/2 hour lunch break as well as a midmorning and midafternoon break. We will let you know of any schedule changes as they may occur.
32 We invite participants to monitor the progress of the hearing in order to be ready to make their presentation.
33 The Papineau Room, which is located outside this room and to your right, will serve as the examination room where you can examine the documents that have been placed on the public record for this proceeding. The examination room is open to the public and parties throughout the duration of the hearing.
34 The telephone number of the examination room is 819‑953‑3168.
35 There is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the court reporter sitting at the table on my right. If you have any questions on how to obtain all or part of this transcript, please approach the court reporter during a break. Please note that the full transcript will be made available on the Commission's website shortly after the conclusion of the hearing.
36 Please note that ASL and LSQ sign language interpretation services will be made available throughout the hearing if needed. Please advise the Hearing Secretary if you require such services.
37 Furthermore, French and English captioning of the hearing is available on the screens to my left, as well as on the CRTC's Web home page. If you require assistance during the consultation, our staff members in and outside the hearing room or in the public examination room will be pleased to help you.
38 Nous avons à votre disposition des membres du personnel du Conseil qui se feront un plaisir de vous assister tout au long du processus. Ces personnes se retrouvent à la salle d'examen, ainsi qu'à l'intérieur et l'extérieur de la salle d'audience.
39 We will now proceed with the presentations in the order of appearance set out. Each participant will have 15 minutes for their presentation, followed by questions by the hearing Panel.
40 Now, Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with our first presentation.
41 Appearing for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is Cathy Moore. Please introduce your colleague. You then have 15 minutes for your presentation.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
42 MS MOORE: Thank you, Sylvie. Thank you, Commissioners and Mr. Katz, for this opportunity to speak today on what I hope when we look back on it will be called a historic hearing.
43 I will introduce my colleague, Bernard Nunan, who is here to take notes and to assist me when I lose something, which will be inevitable in my pile of papers.
44 I work for CNIB, which is a large organization. My role is Director of Consumer and Government Relations. I would like to be clear that we are one of three groups speaking to you this week on behalf of the persons with vision loss.
45 CNIB will do a good job, but my two counter organizations, the Alliance for the Equality of Blind Canadians and the Canadian Council of the Blind, will also do a good job. None of us have all the answers, but collectively I trust we will do a good job.
46 I will not return to your summary, which was excellent, Mr. Katz, of what has led us to where we are today in terms of decisions that have been made by the CRTC, but I would like to just draw some attention to one that was a decision that was made, 2006‑15, which was not directly relating to persons with disabilities but was a decision around the details for a framework of forbearance.
47 If you would indulge me for a moment, I will just read a quote from that decision which said: The Commission can decide to retain powers and duties that are strictly necessary to protect vulnerable and uncontested customers.
48 What I would like to talk about for the next portion is the difference between disability groups as a vulnerable population and this regulatory process and context that all of you, yourselves, the Commissioners and industry works in on a day‑to‑day basis.
49 You are regulators and because of that you are sitting where you are because of your background in law or your background in the industry, your background in managerial or entrepreneurial areas. You are pragmatic people. You are looking for details. You are looking for information. You are looking for facts and you are tasked with making explicit directions to both industry and to your policy counterparts as to what to do in specific areas.
50 You have laid out very specifically what you would like to talk about today and I will, I assure you, get to that.
51 The disability community is a vulnerable population, not because of what may seem to be the natural, the inability to access certain telecommunications or broadcasting devices, we are vulnerable because of our lack of capacity to be experts on the huge current and future trends and technicalities around telecommunications and broadcasting.
52 We are ignorant of that because we are the general population. Anyone going into Future Shop, if you asked any customer that walked in the door, would have equally lack of information on the technicalities that makes their flashcard work or why they need 16 versus 30 GB of memory. They may go for the 30 because is sounds bigger but chances are they will never use it.
53 The general population, of which the disability community rests, are not experts in this area.
54 CNIB has 1100 employees. We have an $82 million annual budget and I can assure you we do not have one regulatory lawyer on staff. We do not have an expert in telecommunications.
55 Why am I saying this? I don't need your sympathy. I need your understanding of why we are in a situation where quite often from the regulatory side you are left wondering what on earth do they want, and from our side we are left very frustrated because we don't seem to be able to find bridges to move forward.
56 So I would like to present my presentation today with some suggestions of bridges and ways in which we can move forward, ways in which the capacity of the disability community might be enhanced in order to have a more informed and productive conversation.
57 I would in no way want to suggest that the people coming after me are not informed or will not provide excellent information, but we, as a group, are very, very short on deep expertise in this area. Certainly I am one of the persons that is not an expert.
58 However, to respect your process I would like to get to the subjects that you asked us to discuss today, but I will tell you in the context of what we need but not how to get there. I cannot offer you costs that would be involved in what I'm recommending. I can't talk to you about timeframe and I cannot talk to you about the technical requirements to get there for the reasons I've just stated.
59 However, I would like to say that in the area of described video, CNIB would recommend that as soon as possible we have 100 per cent described video available on prime time television.
60 The accessibility channel is an excellent interim step, but a special channel in the long term is not a solution to access to broadcasting, both news and entertainment.
61 In the area of emergency access, the audio rendering of any emergency messaging that is coming through a broadcasting system is what we recommend and I believe we are close to having that.
62 On the telecommunications side emergency access is about calling in an emergency as much as receiving information about an emergency. Again we would recommend free 911 service for all persons with disabilities, because for many persons with disabilities their incomes are low and it becomes a problem to have to pay an extra charge on top of your regular service in cellular area.
63 We would also like to see the video relay service as soon as possible. The process is in place. We know the expertise exists on how to do it and we believe we are down the road there and we will support our colleagues in the deaf community who would suggest that we need to just move ahead and have it happen.
64 Customer service, we recommend that all customer service websites be accessible to a W3C Consortium requirements, which is the same as the Common Look and Feel requirements of the Government of Canada. So it is very clearly established.
65 But we would also like to recommend that information for customers, including manuals on how to use your new cell phone, are available in alternate format. This again would not be unprecedented. Your own Commission in 1996, in your Decision 626, recommended to all telecommunications companies that they needed to provide bills, information on customer packages, et cetera, in alternate format. So that would simply be expanding that previous decision in 1996.
66 Now, the problem is that these are specific answers which you require and are important but do not address the larger systemic issues that are ubiquitous and will continue to be ubiquitous within the issue around accessibility to disability.
67 I will give you just one quick example. My partner is going to hit me when I get close to my 15 minutes.
68 This is a very ordinary cell phone ‑‑ I will not turn it on; I know it is going to interfere with things. But because of advances in technology I am able to use this ordinary phone, no special bells or whistles, accessibility bells and whistles that allow me, with the use of VoIP and interactive voice messaging to access my e‑mail, calendar, voice mail, et cetera; not only to access it, hear it, but reply.
69 That's through a process, a system that we have a Microsoft version of it. There are others that exist. This has advanced my capability to not ‑‑ because when I use a computer I need large print. This phone allows me to do my e‑mail and resulting in my partner beside me getting a lot more work than he would have gotten otherwise, so I'm not sure he's happy with it.
70 However, if I was hearing impaired I couldn't use it, because what is missing from it is the ability to turn up the volume in a way that would be useful to a hearing impaired.
71 Why? Because there are bandwidth issues here.
72 Now, there may be other phones that have it, but it's not widely available so the hearing impaired, hard of hearing would have difficulty with this.
73 This is one example and there is a myriad of examples, and that's what the issue becomes. It's like herding cats. You catch one, three more are gone if you do not start thinking, all of us ‑‑ all of us in this room ‑‑ both the disability community, industry and Commissioners, in the broader systemic solutions to accessibility issues: what is coming down the pike; how is convergence of information; what kind of bandwidth are we going to need in the future; where is required.
74 All of that needs to be addressed.
75 How to do it? Two suggestions.
76 One is that within the regulatory framework of the CRTC an institute is formed that deals with issues around accessibility. This again is not unprecedented. We have an institute through Georgia Tech that has been in place for a long time that is a private/public partnership that has brought us, the W3C, conventions on how to make our websites accessible through the meeting of academics, industry folks and the disability community.
77 Why within the CRTC and why make it a regulatory system? Because industry cannot be expected to voluntarily go forward with accessibility solutions now, because in the short term there is a cost attached and in a highly competitive climate you cannot expect one company to incur those costs if the rest of the companies aren't having to do the same thing.
78 So if it is regulated in the sense of not a punitive draconian regulation, but a regulation that requires a standardized approach based on solutions that have been researched and costed so that action plans with measurable outcomes can be put in place, that all of that needs to be within a neutral context that the CRTC has the capability to deliver.
79 It cannot be voluntary for the reasons I've stated. It renders in the short term a competitive disadvantage.
80 In the long term it renders innovation and it renders new solutions.
81 I can assure you blackberry students start out by following the status quo. I can also tell you that synthetic speech was first developed not in the broader industry context, but within research laboratories looking at solutions for blind people needing to access text using speech.
82 Industry Canada in the '80s, our Industry Canada, put seed money into that type of research that resulted in Stephen Hawking being able to hear his text.
83 So how do you fund this? My last point.
84 How does the CRTC somehow, in an era of fiscal restraint, how do you come up with the money to actually fund this? How much would it cost?
85 I'm not sure, but it shouldn't be ‑‑ it won't be prohibitive. But you can fund it through current legislation that you have in the Telecommunications Act that allows the Commission ‑‑ it's section 46.5 in the Telecommunications Act that allows you to set up a mechanism called the National Contribution Fund.
86 You have one already that applies to the provision of long distance. Clearly because we were talking about broadcasting and telecommunications, the National Contribution Fund for this type of endeavour would need to be expanded. Perhaps the legislation would need to be expanded. I'm not sure if the Broadcasting Act has the same type of mechanism to allow you.
87 If you could just bear with me for one more minute while I read to you what your own Act, the Telecommunications Act says, that:
"The Commission may require any telecommunications service provider to contribute, subject to any conditions that the Commission may set, to a fund to support continuing access by Canadians to basic telecommunications services."
88 That is the mechanism to fund it. What is required is an institute of public and private and disability community members able to, in a neutral situation, arrive at solutions.
89 Now, if we do that, if we can go forward with this type of process, then this truly will be a historic occasion. And what will also occur is ‑‑ oh, you must be excited; I'm so pleased to see that ‑‑
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
90 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry.
91 MS MOORE: That's not a problem. It's usually me that knocks something over waving my arms.
92 What will happen, I can assure you, is that people will look back on this as an historic hearing that led Canada into part of the leadership that is already under way in the U.S. and in Australia. It will allow us to conform ‑‑ excuse me, I'm not crying, I'm just running out of air.
93 It will allow us to conform with current legislation, particularly in Ontario that is coming out, the AODA. It will allow us to be global partners with the U.S. ADA that has been in place. It will allow our carriers, et cetera, to be more competitive in that area.
94 But more importantly, or perhaps as importantly, it will allow persons with disabilities to quit being a vulnerable population in the context of access to telecommunications and broadcasting and just resume where we always should have been, as just an ordinary segment of the customer population.
95 Again, thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion.
96 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your frank views.
97 We are going to start the questioning with Commissioner Molnar.
98 Commissioner...?
99 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
100 Welcome, Ms Moore and Mr. Nunan.
101 Can I refer my questions to you, Ms Moore?
102 MS MOORE: Yes.
103 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Yes, okay.
104 Thank you for your comments. I would like to begin ‑‑ I have questions here for you related to described video, to telecommunications terminal equipment and to issues related to customer support.
105 I'm going to start, if it's okay with you, with the questions related to described video.
106 MS MOORE: Yes.
107 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay.
108 What I would like to do ‑‑ and I heard you say today that you believed 100 per cent of video should be described and that should be a goal going forward.
109 I will pursue speaking of increasing described video in a moment, but what I would like to get first is your perspective regarding the accessibility of the programming that is described within the system today.
110 Today, as I'm sure you well know, there is approximately 21 hours described by the over the air broadcasters, and if you add in the specialty there is approximately 54 hours each week that is described.
111 On the record of this proceeding there is a number of indications that there are problems with consumers, persons who are blind or visually impaired, being able to access that information, whether it be related to issues regarding promotion, in knowing that in fact the programming is available, or issues related to set‑top boxes and remotes and electronic program guides.
112 There appears to be a number of issues today that would restrict persons' benefits of the programming that is there today and I wondered if you could comment on that?
113 MS MOORE: I think you have summed it up nicely. One of the issues around accessibility is the knowing that it's there and knowing how it works.
114 So what is available, you are quite right, there are many people who are not aware of that and they are not aware of what to do about it.
115 So we can say, well, you can go to a SAP channel, you can press this, you can press that, but if you are ‑‑ particularly for a lot of low vision persons, our seniors ‑‑ and not to be ages because there are some who are very techno‑savvy, but generally this current generation of 70‑plus are not techno‑savvy and are not comfortable necessarily even with a remote, plus the added problem of being able to actually see it. So there is a difficulty.
116 All accessibility features, really as a given, should have some variation of a training component attached to them and described video is no different. It's how do you do it? How do you get to it? So that's the first thing.
117 The second comment is that 54 hours is simply not enough.
118 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
119 Before we move on to the number of hours, if I could ask you, who do you believe is responsible for addressing the issues of awareness in training?
120 You mentioned there should be a training component. Who would you see responsible for ensuring that consumers that have ‑‑ you know, that persons who are blind or have visual impairments are able to understand how to access the programming?
121 MS MOORE: Well, I think it could be a partnership. I think the primary responsibility is with the broadcaster, the service provider, so that the availability exists. Certainly, the disability organizations can also be involved, but it cannot be a question of the disability organizations being responsible for.
122 They certainly are a partner in the dissemination of the information, but the primary role would be the broadcaster.
123 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
124 Moving on to the issue of increasing the number of hours of described video ‑‑ and I did hear your position that it should be 100 percent ‑‑ if we were to look at a measured increase in described video ‑‑ for example, one of the proposals put forward by the RAAQ was to increase the number of hours, beginning at 14 hours and moving to 28 hours per week, just as an example of a measured increase in described video.
125 If that were to occur, I would like your opinion as it regards who that should apply to.
126 Do you believe that it should apply equally to all broadcasters ‑‑ over‑the‑air, pay, specialty?
127 Would there be any priorities, as you see it, as to where the increases should lie within the system?
128 MS MOORE: First of all, any increase ‑‑ incremental increase, I think, is a very logical approach to achieving the 100 percent. So I would agree with that. A planned incremental increase that is aiming toward 100 percent, I would be very comfortable with that, and I think that our organization would be.
129 Over how many years, I am not sure. That would need to be determined. So to answer that question ‑‑
130 Now, I quite understand the difficulty ‑‑ the myriad of different specialty channels that are there, unregulated some of them, other than the fact that they exist and are available in Canada, but very difficult to get to the crux of the matter.
131 I think what needs to be done is, again, in consultation with the disability community ‑‑ the question could be asked: What could you live with in the next year, or two years.
132 The difficulty for me here is, I can't know what the majority of persons with vision loss would say. So I am hesitant to say: I think it should be news, because I like news.
133 I think it should be how my stock market is doing, because that is one that is a classic example of undescribed, and very frustrating when you hear the music, when everybody else is finding out how far the Dow has gone down today.
134 That is an example of where it is needed.
135 I can't answer your question, and that is why I will go back to my discussion around an institute, and the institute ‑‑ one of its roles would be the determining of what is doable, what is "needable", and what is the priority.
136 Some of that can be done through survey work, and some of it also needs to be done in cooperation with the broadcasters.
137 What is it going to cost? It is very difficult for anyone to sign onto something if they don't know what it's going to cost and what it's going to entail in terms of their own resources.
138 We have some of that information, but it's in various places, and in various countries, so it needs to be brought together.
139 That is a long answer to your question, so I apologize for that.
140 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: No, thank you for that. I just want to ensure that I understand, and I do want to ask you a couple of questions regarding your proposed institute and consultations later on.
141 You would see this proceeding leading to broad policy objectives, and then details regarding the amount of increase, or where those increases would occur, being follow‑ups that are agreed to between stakeholders and the industry?
142 MS MOORE: Yes.
143 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Thank you.
144 I am going to continue with this line of questioning, and I do understand ‑‑ you just told me that you would like to see a number of these issues in follow‑up, but some of them may, in fact, be determined here, so ‑‑
145 MS MOORE: Good.
146 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: As a matter of principle, I do hear that there is a broader populace that has to be considered, and you are not speaking for everyone here.
147 If we continue, one of the other questions we had related to described video in the English versus the French market.
148 Would you see any reason for there to be distinctions between those two?
149 MS MOORE: No.
150 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Thank you.
151 I would also like to touch briefly on the issue of genre. Today described video is limited to the genres of drama, documentaries and children's programming. Do you see for yourself, or for the population that you represent, that there would be other genres that are well adapted to described video, or lend themselves well to described video?
152 MS MOORE: Certainly news. I think that news is essential ‑‑ and given the 24‑hour news period, I realize what I am saying ‑‑ and sports.
153 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: You touched on news and financial information, the fact that you hear music as the information scrolls past on the screen. There is a distinction today within the regulatory framework between described video and audio description.
154 You are aware of audio description, its intent?
155 MS MOORE: Yes.
156 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Do you see that the distinction between audio description and described video remains relevant?
157 MS MOORE: If audio description in the context that it is more ‑‑ it is a simpler process, that it applies to, shall we say, breaking news or time‑sensitive information, then audio description definitely has a place, and an important place.
158 Described video is typically done with something that is already complete, be it a drama, a documentary or a children's program.
159 Obviously, audio description is what is needed with something that is real‑time.
160 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Would you consider that some of the issues ‑‑ for example, you suggested some of the financial information scrolling past on the screen ‑‑
161 MS MOORE: Yes.
162 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Would you consider that some of those issues could be addressed simply by improved audio description?
163 MS MOORE: Yes. Really, the end goal, from a person‑with‑vision‑loss point of view, is simply to hear the information. It is what will get the results. That's the issue.
164 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
165 Just one last issue related to described video. You mentioned The Accessibility Channel, and I think you spoke of it as a transitional measure.
166 MS MOORE: Yes.
167 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: I wondered if you could maybe expand on that and tell us what your view is of the role of TAC as it relates to both expanding the amount of described video, as well as expanding for, potentially, the awareness of the product and information, and so on, for the community.
168 MS MOORE: The Accessibility Channel ‑‑ I call it an interim step, because we are happy with anything that increases the percentage of available described video, and audio description, if that is also the case there.
169 But what happens when you put something in a special place is, you tend to not increase awareness outside of the group that is actually accessing it.
170 Our fear always is that, in a climate where there are never enough resources or enough dollars, we don't want The Accessibility Channel to be the solution, and we are done, and we don't need to do anything else because accessible described video is provided in this specific place.
171 It doesn't cover the myriad of other broadcasting options that are available to the seeing public.
172 What is good about it is that it's a start. It's an improvement, and it also does garner expertise ‑‑ Canadian expertise, in order to make it happen.
173 But if it stops there, then it is not ‑‑
174 I'm sorry. My point is, it can't stop there.
175 MR. NUNAN: If I could pick up on what Cathy is saying, even the people running The Accessibility Channel agree that it's just a piece of the puzzle. Bob Trimbee says that in a 500‑channel universe, The Accessibility Channel would like to see a common channel location across the country.
176 He did research, and he found that, for instance, 888 is not used by anyone across the country.
177 So, although the CRTC prefers not to regulate stations, The Accessibility Channel isn't a commercial enterprise. So what he is saying is, just look at that as a possible station.
178 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Thank you.
179 I would like to move on to issues related to telecommunications, and particularly issues related to terminal equipment and wireless handsets.
180 You spoke about it a bit today, and I know that in your comments, which you filed on July 24th, you also spoke about the issues related to the deregulation of terminal equipment.
181 In those comments you stated that ‑‑ and I am going to find it here ‑‑ "general deregulation of terminal equipment has lessened service."
182 I wonder if you could expand on that, and specifically ‑‑ and I am asking now for some specifics ‑‑ if you could tell us specifically what services you are referring to where service has, in fact, been lessened with the deregulation of terminal equipment ‑‑
183 I'm sorry, Ms Moore, I am just going to continue. It is kind of a long question.
184 MS MOORE: All right.
185 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: ‑‑ as well as what services you are speaking of.
186 If you could, I would like you to explain to me why those services are not accessible. What is the barrier, and what is the impact of that barrier?
187 It is really a three‑part question: what services have been lessened due to deregulation, why are those services not accessible, and what is the resulting impact or barrier that it has caused?
188 MS MOORE: Thank you.
189 It is not that services have been lessened. That is not the way to look at it. Services have simply exploded, without the context of there being an accessibility requirement for them.
190 All of you, as Commissioners, are well aware of the absolute explosion of wireless, and the services that are now available that, in 1994, were not even ‑‑ they were coming, but they were not dreamed of in the way that we take for granted today.
191 So it's not that the services of 1994 have somehow been lessened, it is the ballooning of other services that have come to be considered normal, ubiquitous, and yet are not accessible with vision loss.
192 I will give you examples. There are things like text messaging. Receiving text messaging that is not audio is a good example.
193 Or, being able to read your e‑mail on your phone and respond. Again, there are a couple of phones and a couple of services, but they are more expensive. They are considerably less affordable than a regular wireless package.
194 Video access by phone, again, is not accessible.
195 I am speaking, of course, only for vision loss. If we go into hearing loss, et cetera, which I will let my colleagues talk about, then it becomes even more of a problem.
196 For people with dexterity issues, mobility issues, the ability ‑‑ the necessity to be able to use a keypad renders many wireless services simply unusable, because of the inability to be able to do it. A voice‑activated system would allow that to happen, but right now that is, again, not widely available.
197 So the impact has been that, while the convergence of telephone, television, e‑mail and voice mail has occurred and is marvellous in these small, hand‑held devices, it is eliminating ‑‑ progressively, fewer and fewer people with vision loss are able to use those new tools.
198 Why is that an impact? There are several reasons.
199 One is employment‑wise ‑‑ job‑wise. It is expected that when you travel you are accessing your e‑mail. It's a necessity. Things happen while you are away from the office. You want to be on top of them, right?
200 That is expected. That is not possible, so it limits a person's productivity.
201 The other impact is the unaffordability, or the burden of affordability in order to access the one or two plans that may allow you some, but often not all of the voice access for people with vision loss.
202 So it's the ballooning of the services, the inaccessibility because of keypads, Touch‑Tones, pens, et cetera, and then the impact productivity‑wise, and affordability.
203 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
204 You spoke of affordability as well as accessibility to services, and I would like to stay focused for a few minutes on the issue of accessibility.
205 To what extent are there devices ‑‑ ancillary devices or components available that can be used to make these services accessible?
206 Are you aware of devices, whether available here in Canada or otherwise, that can help to make these devices accessible?
207 MS MOORE: I am aware of some of them, and certainly my job in Consumer Relations means that I need to be aware of some of them.
208 Prior to this I worked in Employment Accommodation.
209 But even with my access, my exposure, et cetera, my knowledge is not extensive, and it's not comprehensive, which brings me to the need, again, for some coordinating body to have this information available.
210 I know that there are voice‑activated phones available, because some of my colleagues use them, through certain carriers. But then the carrier dropped part of that serving, so now we need to go to a different carrier.
211 This is almost word‑of‑mouth information that ends up being circulated in the disability community.
212 So, yes, the devices exist, and every day we might find out about a new one, but the issue is that we are being ‑‑ we in the disability community, which is part of our vulnerability that I spoke to earlier, are being reactive rather than proactive.
213 Why don't we do a better job of knowing ourselves? Because, again, we are the general population, we are not experts, and the availability of the information is not widespread. There is no use for a carrier to advertise these additional devices, because they are much more expensive, they are not competitive.
214 So the mainstream population would not be interested in the $300 Victor Stream that allows me to transfer audio books to my computer, but it exists. I know about it, but it's $300.
215 You can buy the same capacity MP3 player for $50, so the mainstream is not going to want one.
216 It's a vicious circle of lack of information, because there is no competitive reason to disseminate the information, and the technical knowledge on our end. That's a gap.
217 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
218 I would like to follow up a little bit on the issue of lack of information, from two perspectives.
219 First of all, I went on your website yesterday and looked at your catalogue, and I saw that you have a limited number of telecommunications products and services on your website, and I wondered what ‑‑
220 I appreciate what you say, that the general population can't know all that is available, and they are not experts, and you need somewhere to shop, just as I do when I want something new. You shop and find it, and you rely on the information provided to you by the service providers, or Best Buy, or whoever it might be.
221 I noted that you do have a catalogue, and I wondered, not as the general population, but as an organization established to support your population ‑‑ persons with visual disabilities ‑‑ would you see a role for organizations such as yours in accumulating and disseminating this information?
222 MS MOORE: Yes, and we do fulfil the role in the context of assistive technology that already exists, generally aimed at allowing access to print through speech or through Braille.
223 Computer equipment we are a little bit knowledgeable about, but if you noticed, if you went through the catalogue, other than the Victor Stream, there aren't hand‑held devices there. There is no GPS combined with a Pathfinder, combined with a Braille and Speak in our catalogue.
224 We are two, three, four years behind the curve in our own organization with that type of information, and we will never be able to, alone, keep abreast of the developments, because, as we all know, the developments are dizzying in their speed.
225 Again, product‑wise is one area where more information needs to be amassed, and a partnership between ourselves and industry would be very useful ‑‑ and the Commission ‑‑ but we will never be anything but reactive if we do not go back to the beginning of the design of these products, or, in many cases in Canada, because we are not designing but in fact purchasing, go to procurement policies that don't talk about the accessibility features already being built in.
226 Really, the task would then become the dissemination of the information and how to use it, rather than an add‑on or a retrofit to something that is already there.
227 Getting ahead of the curve will only be possible at the early design stage or procurement stage.
228 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you. I understand that.
229 You speak of design and you speak of procurement, and we, as a regulatory body, don't regulate the manufactures ‑‑
230 MS MOORE: Yes.
231 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: ‑‑ those who create the products, so there is some difficulty in us addressing the issue of the design or dissemination of information related to products.
232 And it's not a national market, of course, it's an international market, very much so.
233 MS MOORE: Right.
234 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: But we do regulate the service providers, and they offer a limited number of products and services that are designed specifically to address accessibility needs.
235 I wondered if there were any improvements that you view could be made in the information they make available, so that those products and services could be used to their maximum functionality, or maximum benefit.
236 MS MOORE: I think that the improvement could be around information in an alternate format. That would certainly be useful. And some mechanism of alerts or bulletins to what is new ‑‑ what is coming down the pike, and what are the implications for you. So certainly information dissemination.
237 A sort of passive website is not necessarily going to attract persons with disabilities, because there is a strong ‑‑ and, again, this is not the responsibility, necessarily, of industry or the CRTC, but certainly the rule of thumb in terms of accessibility within the disability community is that there isn't anything, and if there is something, I won't be able to afford it.
238 That, again, is a barrier.
239 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you, Ms Moore.
240 I want to move on quickly, because I have taken a lot of your time, to a couple of issues related more to websites and customer service‑related issues.
241 Can you tell me, as it relates to the service providers ‑‑ the broadcasters, the BDUs, the telecommunications companies ‑‑ in relation to their websites, what information and services you believe would be useful to increase accessibility for persons who are blind or who have vision loss?
242 MS MOORE: Well, on websites I think the obvious things, I think, are already covered: what is available that is accessible, and accessible to whom? So it is an accessible phone for someone with vision loss or someone with mobility issues, dexterity issues?
243 So that, I think, in some places, is there. If isn't, should be. And an easy way to get there.
244 And, you know, it's a given that the actual website, itself, should be accessible. The whole website, because a person may want more information about something else. And you can't predict what your customers wants information on, so best to make the whole thing available.
245 But the other thing that would certainly improve would be a boiling down, or at least the full text, of the customer service manuals: the how‑to.
246 Now, quite often they arrive on CD as part of your new mobile device, let's say, but the CD, by itself, again, is not accessible, it's not navigable. And so you may have a 200‑page manual on your CD and you simply are not able ‑‑ because if you are only doing it audibly and it's not navigable, so it hasn't been saved in a way that you can go to page 32, because the table of contents says how to set up on your phone is on page 32, I need to be able to go to page 32, not go forward or back in an analogue process with a digital CD. So that would improve.
247 So manuals, the customer guides, whatever, how to use your new whatever, done in navigable audio version, which could be on the website that would help.
248 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
249 I want to move now to your comments related to establishing consultations or establishing an ongoing institute to ensure ongoing consultations between industry and persons with disabilities and the CRTC itself.
250 I wondered if you could tell me. We have on the record ‑‑ different parties have put forward different views regarding the benefits that would come from such consultations and some parties have proposed that consultations are only effective if there is a particular purpose.
251 So what would be your views as to the role of this group? Would it be to address purpose‑driven issues, purpose‑driven consultations? Or would it be more a broad sort of policy, just a place for ongoing, in general, discussions and awareness‑building and so on?
252 MS MOORE: Well, I think there's two levels of consultation that are required. Regardless of whether it's a general consultation or a specific technical consultation, purpose‑driven is essential, because otherwise no one knows what...so you end up with just a lot of information and suggestions that aren't necessarily applicable in any given direction.
253 So purpose‑driven is crucial. But I would suggest there's two areas where consultation needs to take place. We need to determine the gaps in needs in the disability community, I think, through some pretty comprehensive surveying of persons with disabilities themselves.
254 We, the organizations, represent groups, but I really think it would be useful ‑‑ and it's something that the disability community at this point doesn't have the capacity to do unaided ‑‑ is to survey the actual people sitting at home trying to get their TV to work as to what they need and what does high definition mean to them in the coming months, et cetera, et cetera.
255 So that's a general survey. And that doesn't necessarily have to be done more than once. And, again, it should be specific. There should be a purpose to it. Is it about broadcasting? Is it about hand‑held devices?
256 But the second consultation which should be the ongoing one is the consultation with the technical experts that do exist within the disability community with, again, purpose‑driven, measurable outcomes that are determined to track the progress of improving accessibility, now be it in described video, be it in video relay or be it in the broader systemic needs around Internet protocols, et cetera, et cetera.
257 So that technical expertise does exist in pockets in the disability community, it's the how to get it done, and that's where the rubber hits the road, if I can use that very worn out cliche. That's what's needed to move things forward.
258 And that, again, I will go back to, needs to be done within the context of the CRTC and within the context of a regulatory mechanism. Because if not, it becomes less effective. Because, again, as I said before, it's very difficult for one company to move ahead and go ahead of the pack because there is a competitive disadvantage, I would argue, in doing so.
259 So we need to look at specific problems, specific solutions, technically based, that allows the industry to talk to the disability community on that technical level.
260 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you for that.
261 I want to say to you that you have been a very effective spokesperson in bringing forward the many priorities of the group that you are representing here and I understand, you know, all are important priorities, as they are, and I think as you have, as I said, effectively put forward, but I'm going to now ask you, the difficult question, if you will, is, if we needed to prioritize these different issues?
262 And, you know, you speak about establishing an institute, increasing described video, addressing emergency services, you speak of alternate formats and websites that are 100 per cent compliant. Can you put those in some sort of order of priority for us?
263 MS MOORE: Yes.
264 Actually, for myself, it's very easy, and for our organization. What we need is an institute or a mechanism that coordinates research, that coordinates information that already exists, coordinates information dissemination, that will enable us to make systemic changes in the regulatory system at the start of new and emerging technologies.
265 The rest are very important, but they are doable now. We know what to do about them now. The question is how, when and who's going to pay for it. But what really, really worries me is the emerging technologies, the emerging requirements, the discussions around net neutrality. I mean, there's a long list that we, in the disability community, are completely out of the loop on. And by the time it becomes apparent to us, it may be too late. We will be back to reactive, retrofitting of something.
266 Convergence is the best thing that ever happened to the disability community, except that it's the worst thing that ever happened. So with the right approach to be able to look at the systemic requirements to keep the accessibility open and possible that's the priority, that's the thing that will serve us into the future and line us up with other countries and with the global situation.
267 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you very much, Ms Moore.
268 Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.
269 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
270 I have got a few follow‑up questions, and maybe some of my fellow commissioners have some as well.
271 Ms Moore, you talk about the institute and collaboration and coordination. Can you tell us to what extent the industry, your industry, has been able to work with the broader telecommunications carriers and broadcasters in trying to work together to identify some of these challenges and resolve them? Has that ever happened? Have you tried it and failed?
272 MS MOORE: Well, I never say failed. We have made several attempts, particularly with the decision in 2006 of the allocation and deferral of funds of 5 per cent, and that sort of kickstarted, maybe, we could say, the latest rounds of consultation with the industry.
273 I have to say that the barriers to effective consultation are what I have already described: that each company, the industry, it's a highly competitive industry, with a lot of the control outside of our borders, in terms of terminal equipment, and that sort of thing, so the consultations tend to be very difficult because one company cannot move by itself necessarily.
274 Now, there has been some progress made, there's been some results of the consultations that we had in 2006 that have been good, but I don't think that we are going to see effective, systemic, let's say calming, of the disability community's worries until we have a consultation process that allows all of the industry to be under the same rubric, in terms of what has to happen next. That's why we are talking about an institute, or it can be called anything you want, but within the CRTC, that allows that coordination function, but also that describing of the agreement of what are we doing, what are the measurable outcomes, what does success look like in the specific areas of, and I would suggest you would start with what we have in front of us: DVS, VRS, et cetera.
275 THE CHAIRPERSON: You actually said the magic two words "deferral account" ‑‑
276 MS MOORE: Yes.
277 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ we all live by these days.
278 To what extent have the carriers who actually had some of the deferral account money approved in 2007 consulted with you and your compatriots regarding the utilization of that money during the trial periods?
279 MS MOORE: We met in 2006, in June, for two days, and it was partly sponsored by the industry, the ILECs. We met in Toronto. There were 11 disability organizations.
280 We worked on our recommendations, then we met with the group the second day. Then a further smaller technical taskforce was put together made up of industry members and technical folks from the disability community, but it broke down, and it broke down ‑‑ I mean, we can talk about anything, but I will go back to the reason that it broke down.
281 The reason that we sort of went back to our respective corners and the disability community recommended an institute, a sort of national institute and national approaches to VRS, et cetera, et cetera, and the industry went back to their respective competitive areas is because of the nature of the two beasts.
282 The industry had not much option except to go back because they were directed to spend the moneys within their own area. There was not a possibility, from their point of view, of a nation‑wide approach to VRS, although that has since been addressed and is going forward. But in 2006, it didn't look possible.
283 The disability community saw the opportunity of the $30 million, $30 million‑plus‑change, as being the way to look at that need for the future systemic requirements of design the system, keep the system designed with the accessibility options in place: expanded broadband, for example, for the transfer of audio files, et cetera.
284 So the minds did not meet at that point. And, you know, it's pointless to go back there and say, well, this or that should have happened. It was a good exercise. It was a good exercise for the disability community. This continues to be a good exercise.
285 Today, a public hearing like this, I think, is a real step forward. And I think there is willingness within the industry, but not at the expense of their bottom line. Well, that may or may not have to be worked out, but there's certainly willingness of the disability community back to that proviso of our capacity at this point, without some additional resourcing is limited to what you are going to get this week.
286 I think we are giving it our best shot, I guess is what I could say, Mr. Katz.
287 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are the lines of communication still open? I mean, we have approved some of these trials and I understand ‑‑ and we will talk about it during the week ‑‑ some of the carriers have delayed the trials pending this proceeding. But are the lines of communication still open or, as you have said, you both went back to your own corners and that's where it lies today?
288 MS MOORE: I will defer to my colleagues from the Canadian Association of the Deaf to speak about VRS and whether the lines are still open or not because I don't know. I simply don't know.
289 I think a certain willingness was expressed by a small consortium of the carriers, Bell and Rogers and a group representing the smaller cable companies, to consult. There were some approaches made prior to these, so I would say the lines of communication are open there.
290 However, I will go back to the important proviso that it will not be effective if it's not done within an umbrella that includes all groups, both industry and the disability community.
291 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Moore. Those are my questions.
292 Anybody else on the panel?
293 Mr. Simpson.
294 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Good morning, Ms Moore.
295 I would first like to share Commissioner Molnar's statement that you have been a very effective spokesman for your issues.
296 MS MOORE: Thank you.
297 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: My questioning is not to the funding issue but to the standards, technology standards and systems, that are or are not in place currently, and picking up on your observation about the ever‑expanding technological universe that we are all trying to deal with.
298 As a former writer, I'm familiar with the International Publishers Association and in about 1994, I believe, they participated in the development of an initiative that was matched by visually impaired persons' associations in the creation of DAISY ‑‑
299 MS MOORE: Yes.
300 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: ‑‑ which is a digital association for information technologies ‑‑
301 MS MOORE: That's right.
302 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: ‑‑ and I'm curious ‑‑ for those who are not familiar with it, they appeared to have been ‑‑ and I'm assuming this, so I would appreciate your input on this, Ms Moore, but they focused predominantly on the emerging technologies and demands of visually impaired persons with respect to the publishing industry ‑‑
303 MS MOORE: Right.
304 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: ‑‑ and they now are branching into working with the world consortium on web ‑‑
305 MS MOORE: Yes.
306 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: ‑‑ issues, but they don't seem to have moved across to the telecommunications and broadcasting environments. I'm wondering if you have anything that you could share with respect to why they have not and also whether this organization has been effective in achieving international standards for those particular industries.
307 MS MOORE: Well, I think DAISY, in itself, is an open‑source software that allow the production of a navigable book, and so the focus has been library and global. There is currently two very good initiatives going on.
308 The Global Library is a consortium of a group, mainly the same players from the DAISY consortium, that are looking at the exchange of audible books through ‑‑ passed borders. And that ties into a WIPO meeting that was held last week, World International Properties Organization, where a treaty around copyright ‑‑ so I won't go into the details because it's not addressing your issue.
309 But the energy has been in the transfer of books, the production of books, and the dissemination of that, the need for navigable books, and it's going in step with the digitization of libraries. So NLS, for example, in the U.S., is just now going to a digital format. CNIB did this four or five years ago. But that's where the focus has gone.
310 So have these standards been? Where it has been picked up, happily, is through Microsoft and there will be a capability to do some saving of your audio files in a variation of a DAISY format very soon in there next iteration. So that's where it's coming from.
311 We are not promoting Microsoft over anyone else, because, as I said, DAISY is open‑source, any company can do this, but it's going to be a built‑in with Microsoft.
312 So has there been an approach to the telecommunications company? I think it's a function of resources and the enormity of the task, I would say. We certainly have several people that sit on that consortium from the CNIB.
313 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.
314 Circling back to the effectiveness of this kind of a consortium or this kind of united effort between a publishing industry and technology, are you aware of or are there similar organizations that are working in the telecom and broadcasting space internationally that emulate this type of a working relationship?
315 MS MOORE: Well, there is a recently formed group, which is a private/public partnership, and it is called the Global Initiative for ‑‑ just a minute, I have to look at my bigger notes here.
316 Pardon me, I'm trying to pretend I can see here, okay?
317 So it's called the G3ict, and it's the Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies, and that's falling out of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that includes in its article 9 access to telecommunications and broadcasting and the second clause in that convention is about early design of inclusive technology at the design stage.
318 So this is a consortium that is ‑‑ they have member like Samsung and they have Air France and they have Sony and they have IBM, along with academics and members of the disability community working on the broader issues of accessibility.
319 And that's where I was talking earlier about this is Canada's opportunity to join that group. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we don't have to start from scratch, but we need to join those global initiatives because we live in a global world. And, again, potentially, from these hearings, this is an opportunity to start.
320 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much.
321 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Simpson.
322 Anybody on my right? No?
323 Again, thank you very, very much for your representation this morning. You certainly have been an excellent advocate for your constituency, once again.
324 MS MOORE: Well, thank you.
325 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's now 10:45. We will take a break until 11 o'clock.
326 MS MOORE: Thank you.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1045 / Suspension à 1045
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1102 / Reprise à 1102
327 THE SECRETARY: Please be seated. S'il vous plaît, vous asseoir.
328 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please. We will resume.
329 Madam Secretary.
330 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous allons maintenant procéder avec le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive. Veuillez vous introduire et présenter vos collègues, puis vous aurez 15 minutes pour faire votre présentation.
PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
331 M. NOLET : Mesdames et messieurs les commissaires, bonjour. Je suis Gilles Nolet, président du Centre québécois de la déficience auditive. Je suis malentendant.
332 Je suis accompagné, aujourd'hui, avec madame Monique Therrien, la nouvelle directrice générale du CQDA, et monsieur Jacques Racicot, bénévole de l'organisme dans le dossier des nouvelles technologies et parent d'un enfant sourd.
333 Comme vous le savez, le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive est un regroupement d'organismes représentant les personnes vivant avec une surdité au Québec, soit environ 10,67 pour cent de la population, qui croît sans cesse compte tenu du vieillissement de la population et de l'utilisation des iPod, jeux vidéo et autres technologies qui endommagent l'ouïe.
334 Nous sommes ici afin de répéter que nous adhérons au premier principe à considérer dans le présent dossier, qui est celui qu'une personne handicapée ne doit pas payer plus cher pour un service à cause de son handicap, un principe accepté par plusieurs intervenants.
335 Nous adhérons aussi au second principe de l'avis 2008‑08 du CRTC, qui est que les télécommunications et les nouvelles technologies doivent être adaptées aux besoins des personnes handicapées.
336 Nous le savons, le Canada possède deux langues officielles, le français et l'anglais. Pour les personnes sourdes gestuelles, ce bilinguisme s'exprime à travers la langue des signes du Québec (LSQ) et l'American Sign Language (ASL).
337 Ce bilinguisme du Canada signifie que les francophones et les anglophones ont droit à des technologies et des informations dans leur propre langue d'usage, que ce soit en matière de sous‑titrage codé à la télévision, de services de relais vidéo, de modes d'emploi, d'appareils divers, etc.
338 Par exemple, les appareils téléphoniques pour sourds actuellement utilisés ont des touches de fonction uniquement en anglais, alors qu'ils sont vendus à des francophones, parfois avec ou sans manuel d'emploi en français, manuel parfois écrit dans un français assez douteux.
339 Nous souhaitons donc que les appareils conçus pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité soient accompagnés de touches, de fonctions et de modes d'emploi en français, afin qu'elles puissent jouir entièrement des adaptations techniques qui s'offrent à elles.
340 Il en va de même pour les services qui leur sont rendus. Ils doivent être adaptés à leur langue maternelle, le français pour les personnes malentendantes et la langue des signes québécoise pour les personnes sourdes gestuelles.
341 Accessibilité aux sites Internet. La norme W3C dresse une liste des besoins particuliers en matière d'accessibilité des personnes vivant avec une surdité aux sites, ainsi que les solutions afin de répondre à ces besoins.
342 Pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité, ces solutions sont :
343 ‑ le sous‑titrage de toute les images vidéos, ainsi que la possibilité de les agrandir afin de répondre aux besoins des personnes vivant avec une surdité et un problème de vision;
344 ‑ des images, des dessins, des photos, afin d'expliquer visuellement ce qui est écrit;
345 ‑ des textes dans une langue simplifiée;
346 ‑ de l'interprétation en langage signé;
347 ‑ la transcription écrite des éléments audio et vidéo afin que la personne sourde et aveugle puisse consulter le site à l'aide d'une plage tactile.
348 Ces mesures, simples en soi, contribueront à aider tant les personnes sourdes gestuelles que malentendantes, mais contribueront aussi à aider des personnes vivant avec d'autres limitations.
349 Ainsi, les textes simplifiés aideront aussi la compréhension des dyslexiques, des personnes avec une déficience intellectuelle et même des allophones. Les gros caractères aideront les personnes âgées et les personnes avec perte de vision. Les textes en braille aideront les malvoyants.
350 Les avantages de l'adaptation sont donc multiples et même avantageux.
351 Nous croyons que les membres de l'Association canadienne des fournisseurs Internet, l'Association canadienne des télécommunications sans fil, l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs, les manufacturiers, entre autres, et les intervenants des organismes communautaires de défense des droits des personnes vivant avec une surdité doivent s'asseoir dès maintenant afin d'étudier la mise en oeuvre des normes W3C dans un avenir très rapproché, principalement dans un Canada qui souhaite offrir des services branchés aux personnes vivant avec une limitation fonctionnelle.
352 Téléphone cellulaire. Pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité, le téléphone cellulaire est synonyme de messagerie texte ou de téléphone par service de relais.
353 Le débit moyen d'une personne qui parle est environ 150 mots à la minute. Pour les personnes qui utilisent un clavier, le débit est facilement réduit à 30‑40 mots à la minute, selon la dextérité de la personne, que ce soit sur un clavier ou sur une plage tactile.
354 Écrire un message texte sur un clavier de téléphone cellulaire exige encore plus de temps. Dans les faits, une personne vivant avec une surdité pourrait prendre jusqu'à 80 pour cent plus de temps pour dire la même chose qu'une personne qui utilise sa voix.
355 Les personnes vivant avec une surdité utilisent donc plus de temps d'antenne, et aucun forfait cellulaire, en ce moment, ne tient compte de cet aspect particulier du handicapé. Cette personne paie aussi plus cher parce que qu'elle utilise plus de temps d'antenne.
356 Pour le CQDA, l'idée d'un rabais de 50 pour cent, semblable à celui offert pour la téléphonie filaire, est à rejeter. Il serait plus pertinent d'établir un mécanisme qui permettrait aux personnes vivant avec une surdité de s'inscrire, avec preuve à l'appui, afin d'obtenir un forfait déterminé respectant leur incapacité et leurs besoins particuliers. Il n'est pas ici question d'obtenir un avantage spécial, mais bien une adaptation raisonnable au handicap auditif.
357 Aussi, il serait plus qu'intéressant que soient offerts plus facilement et largement au Canada des téléphones cellulaires avec fil pour les prothèses auditives, ce qui est d'usage courant aux États‑Unis. Ce petit fil permettrait aux personnes malentendantes d'avoir accès à une technologie qui leur échappe bien souvent en ce moment.
358 Services de relais vidéo. Le CQDA est d'avis que les services de relais vidéo qui seront mis en place devront l'être dans les deux langues, LSQ/ASL, comme c'est le cas en ce moment pour les services de relais téléphoniques, le tout en accord avec la notion de langues officielles canadiennes.
359 Mais encore plus, la mise en place de ces services de relais devra être jumelée à l'établissement de normes et de règles en matière de qualité.
360 En ce moment, les différents services de relais téléphoniques offrent des services de qualité variant de pauvre à excellente, aucune règle ni norme ayant été établie avant ou au début de leur entrée en fonction, le tout ayant été laissé au libre arbitre des entreprises dispensant ces services.
361 Aussi, l'Association canadienne des fournisseurs Internet devra se sentir interpellée par l'entrée en vigueur du service de relais vidéo puisque les demandes de service, pour la plupart, proviendront d'ordinateurs branchés à l'Internet.
362 Aujourd'hui, les personnes sourdes gestuelles, et les jeunes sourds en particulier, utilisent de plus en plus leur caméra vidéo pour communiquer entre eux. La webcam et Internet sont donc, pour eux, l'équivalent du téléphone classique.
363 Le service téléphonique filaire local est sujet à un tarif mensuel fixe, ce qui n'est pas le cas du service Internet, qui est régi et facturé sur la base de l'utilisation de la bande passante.
364 Le recours aux communications par webcam et par service de relais exige, pour les personnes vivant avec une surdité, l'utilisation de beaucoup plus de bande passante qu'une autre personne sans handicap auditif, ce qui génère des coûts additionnels.
365 Tout comme pour la téléphonie cellulaire, aucun forfait Internet ne tient compte en ce moment de cet aspect particulier. Une personne vivant avec une surdité paie donc plus cher parce que ses modes de communication prennent plus de bande passante.
366 Ici encore, le CQDA croit qu'il serait pertinent d'établir un mécanisme qui permettrait aux personnes vivant avec une surdité de s'inscrire, avec preuve à l'appui, afin d'obtenir un tarif particulier respectant leur incapacité.
367 Ce tarif, chez les compagnies actuelles qui offrent les deux services et celles qui les offriront à l'avenir, pourrait comprendre tant le service local de téléphonie que l'accès à Internet.
368 Le sous‑titrage codé. Depuis plusieurs années, nous entendons parler de quantité de sous‑titrage, mais fort peu de qualité, alors que c'est cette même qualité qui assure une bonne transmission de l'information.
369 L'industrie semble avoir de la difficulté à accroître cette qualité, tout en accroissant, en parallèle, le nombre d'émissions sous‑titrées, et les normes qui régissent cette qualité sont variables d'un télédiffuseur à l'autre.
370 Le CRTC a conclu en ce sens et a demandé (décision 2008‑8‑1) à l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs (ACR) de coordonner la création de groupes de travail de langue française et de langue anglaise pour élaborer et mettre en place des normes universelles et de proposer et appliquer des solutions concrètes aux autres aspects de la qualité du sous‑titrage, dont des mécanismes destinés à réduire les erreurs et les défaillances techniques (avis public de radiodiffusion 2007‑54). Le Conseil a approuvé le plan d'action de l'ACR sur la qualité du sous‑titrage en février dernier et attend la remise des conclusions des groupes de travail en novembre 2008.
371 Toutefois, l'ACR n'a pas communiqué avec le CQDA pour ce dossier. L'ACR ne peut continuer à travailler en vase clos, sans consulter les principaux consommateurs de sous‑titrage. Le CQDA aurait apprécié être consulté par l'ACR.
372 Le milieu des consommateurs de sous‑titrage doit faire partie prenante des discussions en cours, ainsi que celles à venir. Tout au moins afin de comprendre la situation et l'expliquer aux consommateurs. À notre avis, ignorer les personnes qui utilisent le sous‑titrage constitue un non‑sens.
373 Le CQDA demande donc de faire partie des discussions, principalement concernant le sous‑titrage en français.
374 Les services d'urgence. Le jugement de la Cour suprême connu sous le nom d'Affaire Eldridge conclut qu'omettre de fournir des interprètes gestuels, effectivement nécessaires à l'efficacité des communications dans la prestation des services médicaux, constitue une violation des droits à l'égalité garantis au paragraphe 15(1) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.
375 Nous croyons que la même logique s'applique en matière de sécurité et de services d'urgence. Si la vie, la sécurité ou la santé de la personne sourde ou malentendante est en danger, il faut recourir aux services d'interprétation.
376 S'il devrait y avoir diffusion de messages télévisuels concernant des mesures d'urgence, ces messages devraient non seulement être sous‑titrés, mais aussi interprétés en langue des signes québécois et en American Sign Language afin de rejoindre les personnes sourdes gestuelles.
377 Nous l'avons dit précédemment et nous le répétons, plusieurs personnes sourdes gestuelles sont analphabètes fonctionnelles. Elles comprennent les mots, mais pas toujours le sens des phrases. Elles utilisent le sous‑titrage pour accroître leur compréhension, mais ont aussi beaucoup recours aux images diffusées pour comprendre l'information ou le contenu de l'émission.
378 En situation d'urgence, le texte ne suffit donc pas. Il leur faut de l'information claire, directe et dans leur langue. Il en va de leur santé, de leur sécurité, et parfois même de leur vie.
379 La situation actuelle du service 9‑1‑1 nous inquiète parce qu'elle ne permet pas aux personnes vivant avec une surdité de rejoindre les services de manière aussi rapide que si elles étaient entendantes, ce qui peut être un risque pour leur santé, leur sécurité et même leur vie.
380 Nous savons que ce problème est très complexe à résoudre et, dans l'immédiat, nous n'avons pas de solution à proposer, mais nous sommes prêts à collaborer en tout temps avec le milieu et les chercheurs afin de trouver une solution efficace qui pourrait sauver des vies.
381 Une vision inclusive. L'inclusion signifie que l'on a pensé, avant même de mettre en marché un produit ou un service, aux problèmes auxquels auront à faire face les personnes vivant avec une limitation fonctionnelle et que l'on a résolu ces problèmes, alors que l'intégration signifie adapter le service ou le produit après sa mise en marché, ce qui coûte souvent beaucoup plus cher pour l'industrie.
382 Tous les intervenants au présent dossier doivent donc, à l'avenir, travailler de manière inclusive et non intégrative.
383 Pour ce faire, le CQDA est prêt à participer à toute instance, à tout comité de travail et à tout groupe souhaitant travailler de manière soutenue à l'inclusion des personnes handicapées dans la société canadienne par le biais des nouvelles technologies parce que travailler à cette inclusion signifie traiter les personnes vivant avec une surdité à part égale. Ne pas le faire, c'est les laisser tout simplement à part.
384 Merci, messieurs et mesdames les commissaires d'avoir pris le temps de m'écouter.
385 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Nolet.
386 Je demanderais à la Conseillère Lamarre de commencer les questions.
387 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
388 Merci, Monsieur Nolet. Merci à vous tous d'être ici ce matin pour répondre à nos questions.
389 Monsieur Nolet, étant donné que vous présidez votre groupe, je vous adresserai directement les questions, mais sentez‑vous à l'aise de désigner un de vos collègues pour me répondre si nécessaire.
390 J'ai lu attentivement vos soumissions, j'ai écouté aussi attentivement votre présentation, et il y a plusieurs sujets pour lesquels j'ai des questions.
391 Alors, tout d'abord, mes questions porteront sur les services de télécommunication, ensuite, le sous‑titrage, et en dernier, je vous demanderai des précisions sur les questions que j'appellerais complémentaires, faute d'avoir trouvé un meilleur terme.
392 Donc, allons‑y pour les questions sur les services de télécommunication, si vous êtes d'accord.
393 Le premier sujet que j'aimerais toucher avec vous, c'est le service de relais de message qui est en voie de subir une transformation avec les avènements auxquels vous avez déjà fait allusion, soit les services de relais par vidéo et même les services de relais par protocole Internet.
394 Dans des mémoires qui ont été déposés devant le Conseil, il est question de la pertinence de maintenir ou d'abolir le service traditionnel de relais de message une fois que les services vidéo et par protocole Internet auront été déployés.
395 J'aimerais connaître votre opinion à ce sujet‑là, précisément à savoir si vous pensez que dans certaines circonstances, ce serait, effectivement, approprié d'abolir le service de relais message traditionnel et si, dans d'autres circonstances, ce serait plutôt préférable de le maintenir.
396 M. RACICOT : Si vous le permettez, je vais répondre à cette question.
397 Quand vous faites appel à ou que vous nommez le service de relais traditionnel, vous parlez évidemment, des services de relais téléphonique...
398 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Oui.
399 M. RACICOT : ...tels qu'ils existent actuellement, et ce service de relais téléphonique utilise comme terminal un appareil que, dans notre langage, on nomme un ATS, c'est‑à‑dire un appareil qui permet de retranscrire la voix dans un message écrit.
400 Ce que je peux vous dire par rapport à ça, c'est que nous ne voyons pas qu'il soit possible dans un avenir du moins immédiat de remplacer ce type de service là pour plusieurs raisons.
401 Un, le fait que les équipements terminaux qui sont nécessaires à établir des services de relais texte tel qu'on connaît, que ce soit par MSN ou tout type de transmission de ce type là, exigent des équipements qui ne sont pas actuellement disponibles pour les personnes qui vivent avec une surdité.
402 L'achat de ces équipements‑là, que ce soit un ordinateur, que ce soit un autre type de terminal, est actuellement trop onéreux, du moins pour le Québec, et les services de fourniture de ce type d'équipement là ne sont pas du tout prêts à remplacer ce type d'appareil, l'appareil ATS qui est actuellement existant.
403 Deuxième situation, c'est que les gens qui utilisent ce type d'appareil là sont actuellement trop habitués à utiliser ce genre de technologie là pour passer immédiatement à un autre service de relais texte par exemple.
404 L'établissement d'un service de relais vidéo ne signifie pas du tout l'abandon d'un service de relais texte, puisque avec un service de relais vidéo, on s'adresse à une population plus particulière, qu'on appelle les personnes qui communiquent par geste, donc, qui utilisent un langage gestuel.
405 Mais je dois vous rappeler que cette portion de la population n'est pas la totalité des personnes qui vit avec une surdité, mais qu'il existe encore énormément de " personnes malentendantes " qui vont continuer d'utiliser le langage écrit pour communiquer avec des personnes qui sont elles‑mêmes entendantes.
406 Est‑ce que ça répond à votre question?
407 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Ça répond très bien à ma question, merci.
408 Ma prochaine question porte plus spécifiquement sur le déploiement éventuel de service de relais par protocole Internet et service de relais par vidéo.
409 Alors, pour ces services, outre la disponibilité nationale de ces services‑là, quels aspects de leur mise en oeuvre devrait‑on considérer prioritaire?
410 M. RACICOT : Est‑ce que vous pouvez préciser un peu votre question?
411 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Oui. Par exemple, bon, on conçoit qu'une des priorités, ça serait de rendre le service disponible à travers le Canada. Est‑ce que, selon vous, ça devrait être aussi disponible dans les deux langues officielles? Est‑ce qu'il y a des heures de disponibilité qu'on devrait prévoir?
412 M. RACICOT : D'accord. Bon, la première réponse, en tout cas, à votre question, c'est, évidemment, la disponibilité dans les deux langues. Il n'est pas question pour nous que le service soit accessible uniquement, par exemple, aux personnes de langue anglophone ou qui utilisent l'équivalent de la langue anglophone, soit l'American Sign Language, et que ce service ne soit pas accessible aux francophones qui utilisent la langue des signes québécoise dans un même temps.
413 L'utilisation des langues officielles existe au Canada, et je ne verrais pas du tout l'approbation officielle de l'utilisation d'un service dans une langue et qui ne soit pas dans l'autre. C'est la même situation pour nous. Il est hors de question et complètement indu qu'un service soit installé dans une langue uniquement et non pas dans l'autre.
414 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Pensez‑vous que ce type de service là, de technologie là, ça pourrait être une solution pour palier à certaines difficultés pour les appels d'urgence que vous avez mentionné dans votre introduction?
415 M. RACICOT : Effectivement, c'est une solution. Ce n'est pas la seule solution qui pourrait exister, mais il appert que c'est une solution qui permet à des personnes qui ont de la difficulté à lire... parce que monsieur Nolet en a parlé dans son texte, très souvent, les personnes qui utilisent la langue gestuelle ont, malheureusement, des difficultés de lecture et doivent, conséquemment, composer avec la langue des signes comme étant le meilleur moyen de communication et surtout celui qui leur permet d'être beaucoup plus précis dans leur compréhension et dans leur expression.
416 On se rappelle que dans les services d'urgence, très souvent, la précision du texte ou la précision du message comme tel est un élément très important, que ça soit dans un sens ou dans l'autre, que ça soit dans le sens communiquer vers le service d'urgence pour signifier qu'on a une crise cardiaque, donc, signifier nos malaises, donc, préciser, par exemple, de quoi on souffre, et dans l'autre sens, pour recevoir, que ça soit des ordres d'évacuation, que ça soit des avertissements de coupure de système d'électricité, que ça soit des inondations.
417 Écoutez, je ne pourrai pas vous nommer tous les services d'urgence qui peuvent exister, mais je pense que vous pouvez très bien comprendre que, et dans un sens et dans l'autre, la précision du message dans une situation d'urgence devient essentielle et non pas... on ne peut pas se contenter d'un message général. Il faut avoir les directions où aller, allez vers la droite, allez vers la gauche, allez vers le sud, allez vers le nord.
418 Donc, toutes ces indications‑là se doivent d'être aussi précises que possible, et, conséquemment, d'être communiquées dans la langue la plus accessible et surtout la plus compréhensible pour la personne qui émet ou reçoit le message.
419 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Au paragraphe 31 de votre soumission du mois de juillet, vous proposez de faire usage des services sans fil et les appareils qui sont associés à ces services‑là en remplacement de l'installation de téléscripteurs dans les téléphones publics.
420 Cependant, le service sans fil, lui non plus n'est pas exempt de contraintes. Par exemple, le service n'est pas nécessairement disponible partout en milieu rural ou éloigné. La situation topographique ou même la géographie urbaine, si vous me permettez l'expression, peut altérer, voire même empêcher la transmission de signaux.
421 Donc, à prime abord, j'aurais plutôt eu tendance à considérer ces appareils sans fil complémentaires et non pas suppléants aux téléscripteurs. Pouvez‑vous élaborer un peu plus sur votre point de vue à ce sujet‑là?
422 M. RACICOT : Le départ de cette réflexion et même, à la limite, proposition vient du fait que toute la... je ne dirais pas la technologie, mais l'installation comme telle de téléphones publics est, pour nous, une espèce en voie de disparition au profit de la téléphonie cellulaire.
423 Je ne pense pas qu'on assiste à l'augmentation comme telle de la téléphonie ou, en tout cas, des services de téléphone public. Toute l'industrie et le marketing par rapport à cette technologie‑là, je dirais, ou, en tout cas, l'utilisation des téléphones publics, nous considérons que c'est une espèce en voie de disparition.
424 Alors, conséquemment, d'investir énormément d'argent dans une technologie ou dans un système en voie de disparition, pour nous autres, nous apparaît un non‑sens, plutôt que de penser à utiliser tout l'argent qui est nécessaire ou qui existe par rapport à cette disposition‑là en vue de développer quelque chose de compatible entre la téléphonie cellulaire ou du moins un appareil qui permettrait aux gens de se brancher directement sur les téléphones publics, plutôt que de transformer ces téléphones publics là comme tel.
425 Alors, pour nous autres, c'est une question d'investissement de sommes d'argent que l'industrie va faire si le CRTC lui ordonne, mais on peut se poser la question si elle est maintenant nécessaire ou en tout cas si c'est une disposition qui est sensée dans notre monde d'évolution technologique actuelle.
426 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Je vais passer aux questions sur le sous‑titrage, mais juste avant, je tiens à vous signaler que j'ai bien pris note de vos commentaires, autant dans votre soumission que dans votre présentation, au sujet des frais supplémentaires inhérents aux services qui sont utilisés par les personnes qui souffrent d'une déficience auditive. Alors, je n'ai pas de questions à poser parce que j'ai bien compris.
427 En ce qui concerne le sous‑titrage, mes premières questions portent autant sur ce que vous dites et ce que vous ne dites pas dans vos mémoires.
428 À la page 13 de votre mémoire de septembre, c'est un entre‑filet, vous affirmez... en réponse à une question qui ne tient pas au sous‑titrage, vous affirmez que depuis l'arrivée de la technologie de la reconnaissance vocale en matière de sous‑titrage codé pour la télévision, les personnes vivant avec une surdité se plaignent de la piètre qualité du français.
429 Est‑ce que vous faites référence ici uniquement au sous‑titrage dans les émissions en direct?
430 MME THERRIEN : Principalement, mais ce matin, juste pour vous mettre devant le fait, nous regardions le sous‑titrage en direct qui se fait aujourd'hui. Avec tout le respect que nous avons pour les gens qui travaillent pour cette technologie‑là, il est très difficile de suivre le sous‑titrage en français qui est fait ici, ce matin, à moins de comprendre les sons qui sont tapés parfois. Ce sont des mots qui sont mis côte à côte, mais ce sont des sons. Alors, une personne sourdre gestuelle ne serait pas en mesure de comprendre quoi que ce soit ce matin en lisant le texte écrit.
431 Donc, pour répondre à votre question, l'une des plus grandes difficultés, c'est effectivement le direct au niveau du français. Bien que le différé, eux, ils ont le temps de corriger, alors, tout est là.
432 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Donc, outre l'exemple que vous venez de nous donner de ce matin, est‑ce que vous avez d'autres exemples précis dans des émissions, par exemple, d'affaires publiques ou de nouvelles qui sont en direct, qui vous viennent à l'esprit au niveau de l'expérience que vous vivez ou que les gens que vous représentez vivent?
433 MME THERRIEN : Je n'ai pas d'exemple concret. Vous comprendrez que notre organisme ne fait pas de veille technologique particulière pour le sous‑titrage. Nous traitons tous les dossiers de la surdité au Québec.
434 Donc, ce que nous avons, c'est vraiment les commentaires de nos usagers, qui se plaignent principalement des nouvelles où on va changer de sujet, et la phrase précédente n'est pas terminée. On change de sujet, on est incapable de suivre. Alors, le problème est vraiment principalement avec les émissions en direct.
435 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Maintenant, d'une part... Oui?
436 M. RACICOT : J'aimerais juste rajouter.
437 Une des grandes difficultés, il faut l'admettre, c'est que l'investissement et le sous‑titrage en direct du côté anglophone est de loin supérieur à celui fait du côté francophone. On doit admettre, quelque part possiblement, que la langue française est plus complexe possiblement que la langue anglaise.
438 Mais pour moi, c'est peut‑être une notion de quantité d'investissement, soit de temps, d'énergie, d'argent qui ont été consacrés à chacun de ces volets‑là.
439 Je n'ai pas la réponse exacte, mais le constat est que : un, lorsqu'on est ici ce matin et qu'on regarde les deux écrans, c'est‑à‑dire l'écran anglophone ou l'écran anglais et l'écran francophone, un est plus rapide que l'autre dans la présentation du texte, et un est plus précis et complet que l'autre dans la présentation du texte, et malheureusement, c'est le côté francophone qui en souffre.
440 Est‑ce que c'est une question de sommes, de montant d'énergie, de langue? J'aimerais vous répondre à ça avec précision, mais possiblement que des personnes encore plus expertes que nous autres pourront vous répondre ou pourraient répondre à cette question‑là. Mais le constat malheureux qui est à faire, c'est que les personnes qui sont francophones sont désavantagées à ce niveau‑là, et de loin.
441 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Monsieur Nolet, vous voulez ajouter quelque chose.
442 M. NOLET : Je veux parler comme consommateur, et bienheureux ou malheureusement, j'ai quand même un ratio que j'ai que je peux entendre avec le micro, et quand, aujourd'hui, j'écoute, j'ai... un ou l'autre. Mais ce n'est pas toute la communauté sourde. Il y a les sourds profonds... très sévère. On en perd des bouts. Surtout l'information en général, c'est un gros, gros problème pour moi.
443 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Vous avez fait allusion, dans votre présentation, sur la quantité du sous‑titrage par rapport à la qualité. Vous avez dit, bon, la quantité augmente, mais la qualité ne suffit pas toujours.
444 Maintenant, en se concentrant uniquement sur la quantité et en présumant qu'elle est de qualité acceptable, est‑ce que vous estimez que présentement, la quantité de sous‑titrage qui est disponible en télévision est suffisante, est à un niveau acceptable pour vous?
445 MME THERRIEN: Pour l'instant, non, puisque si l'on regarde les télédiffuseurs privés, ce sont eux qui ont le pourcentage de sous‑titrage le moins élevé. On l'a vu en juin dernier, TQS était à environ... je crois que c'était 45 pour‑cent. TVA était peut‑être à une soixantaine, si ma mémoire est bonne et Radio‑Canada était le chef de file, mais n'atteignait pas encore l'entièreté du sous‑titrage.
446 Alors, nous, les francophones, on est toujours un peu en arrière aussi, si on compare avec les anglophones qui bénéficient d'un bassin beaucoup plus large d'émissions qui proviennent d'ailleurs.
447 Certains intervenants ont proposé que les radiodiffuseurs adoptent une politique interne de contrôle de qualité du sous‑titrage. Selon vous, qu'est‑ce que cette politique‑là, si elle était adoptée, devrait prévoir?
448 M. RACICOT: Vous savez, la notion de contrôle de qualité interne par l'industrie nous fait énormément peur parce que: est‑ce qu'on peut être celui qui livre le service et celui qui évalue la qualité du service qu'on livre?
449 C'est assez difficile de s'autocritiquer soi‑même et de se rendre coupable de... de finalement de se déclarer coupable d'erreur, comme telle.
450 Actuellement, l'exemple que je peux vous donner, c'est dans le service de relais téléphonique. Il existe ce qu'on appelle un comité aviseur, un comité comme tel qui se rencontre régulièrement avec l'industrie en question ou le service en question afin de suivre le développement ou l'accroissement de la qualité et de la quantité en rapport avec le service offert.
451 Je peux vous dire que dans un cas en particulier (puis, je vais le nommer), dans le cas du service de relais Bell, ce fonctionnement ou cette mesure fonctionne très bien et donne des résultats excellents.
452 Il faut dire que d'emblée, la mise en place des normes, ou la mise en place des normes de qualité et de quantité a été faite conjointement entre les associations de consommateurs (ou les associations qui représentent les consommateurs) et l'industrie elle‑même, ce qui a donné lieu à un consensus en termes des normes finales.
453 Lorsque ce service‑là n'existe pas, à ce moment‑là, on constate malheureusement que la qualité et que la quantité du service donné est de loin déficiente. Et en ce sens‑là, pour nous, il devient essentiel qu'il existe des normes universelles, il faut le dire. Pourquoi est‑ce qu'un service serait désavantagé par rapport à un autre en offrant plus de qualité, donc en étant soumis à une pression financière supplémentaire et que l'autre compagnie à côté, en esquivant, finalement, je veux dire... le respect de normes ou de services aux consommateurs pourrait générer, à la limite, un profit supplémentaire.
454 Alors, pour nous, il devient important que le CRTC se prononce en faveur de l'établissement de normes communes à l'industrie soit de la radiodiffusion ou soit de la télécommunication envers le consommateur.
455 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Donc, si je comprends bien ce que vous me dites, c'est qu'une telle politique interne ne devrait pas inclure l'auto‑évaluation? C'est que l'évaluation devrait être faite par un organisme consultatif extérieur et qui ne comprend pas uniquement le producteur de sous‑titrages?
456 M. RACICOT: Effectivement. Et c'est ce qui se produit dans le cas du relais téléphonique. C'est une compagnie indépendante qui effectue la vérification de la norme de services de quantité et de qualité.
457 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Parlons justement de l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs qui remettra (et vous l'avez souligné) prochainement les rapports des groupes de travail.
458 Premier commentaire que j'aimerais faire, suite à votre présentation: Vous avez mentionné dans votre présentation que votre centre n'avait pas été consulté, mais je tiens à vous mentionner que le Regroupement québécois du sous‑titrage faisait partie du groupe. Alors, c'est une information que vous voudriez commenter?
459 MME THERRIEN: C'est que c'est la Ressource québécoise pour le sous‑titrage, le Regroupement québécois pour le sous‑titrage n'existe plus depuis plusieurs années et c'est un organisme privé qui ne représente pas de façon aussi...
460 Bien, c'est un organisme... ce n'est pas un organisme impartial comme le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive qui représente les consommateurs sourds, il faut s'entendre. Je voulais juste faire cette mise au point‑là, pour le RQST.
461 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui. Merci de me corriger et je note votre commentaire.
462 Maintenant, dans ce rapport, on s'attend justement à ce qu'ils décrivent une nouvelle norme qu'on voudra universelle pour le sous‑titrage. Selon vous, est‑ce que le Conseil devrait exiger des radiodiffuseurs, par condition de licence, qu'ils adhèrent et utilisent cette nouvelle norme, une fois qu'on sera d'accord sur la norme?
463 MME THERRIEN: Il faudra qu'on soit d'accord sur la norme, mais qu'on soit consulté pour être d'accord sur la norme. À partir de ce moment‑là, oui, je crois qu'il devrait y avoir obligation.
464 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Merci.
465 M. RACICOT: Est‑ce que je peux rajouter quelque chose?
466 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui.
467 M. RACICOT: Et je vais revenir sur la partie du texte qui touchait à l'inclusion.
468 C'est toujours extrêmement difficile pour nous autres de répondre ou de se prononcer à un rapport une fois qu'il est produit. C'est vraiment différent de se consulter lors de la production ou lors des comités de discussion parce qu'on pense à toutes sortes de sujets, ça nous fait penser à cette solution‑là... Ça nous donne également des fois (et presque tout le temps) la possibilité de consulter nos membres par rapport à tel sujet ou tel autre sujet.
469 Vous savez, quand le rapport est déjà écrit, on est comme dirigé vers un tel sujet ou un tel sujet et ça en élude d'autres. Alors, c'est dans ce sens‑là qu'on parle d'inclusion, donc, de consultation préalable et non pas après le fait. C'est toujours plus difficile de réparer quelque chose qui a été construit que de l'adapter à la source.
470 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Merci. Alors, ce qui a été proposé entre autres pour (je n'utiliserai plus le même mot) le RQST (comme ça, je suis certaine de ne pas me tromper) c'est qu'une mesure de la qualité du sous‑titrage soit établie en comptant les erreurs et en établissant un taux d'erreur acceptable ou non.
471 Alors, si on devait retenir cette proposition‑là, selon vous, comment est‑ce qu'on devrait définir une erreur et comment est‑ce qu'on pourrait les identifier?
472 M. RACICOT: La notion d'erreur comme telle se situe à deux niveaux, principalement. Il y a les erreurs de compréhension dans le texte et il y a les erreurs d'orthographe. C'est deux choses qui sont complètement différentes et, évidemment, que la notion prioritaire, entre parenthèses, est évidemment la notion de compréhension.
473 Mais je ne voudrais surtout pas prioriser cette notion d'erreur de compréhension au profit d'erreurs d'orthographe puisqu'il faut le comprendre. Le sous‑titrage comme tel fait appel également à la notion d'apprentissage de la langue et c'est notre représentation lexicographique, finalement, de notre langue.
474 Et ça s'adresse aux jeunes, ça s'adresse aux personnes âgées; ça s'adresse aussi aux émigrants ou aux personnes qui tentent d'apprendre le français.
475 Et si en partant, on accepte d'emblée qu'on ait un taux d'erreur ou qu'on ait un taux d'omission ou d'interprétation de mauvaise qualité, quelle image est‑ce qu'on donne à notre langue française à ceux qui nous regardent.
476 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Pour compléter cette question‑là, advenant qu'on accepte le concept d'un système de surveillance (peu importe lequel), est‑ce que ça devrait faire l'objet, selon vous, d'une condition de licence pour les radiodiffuseurs, d'avoir un tel système de surveillance et d'y adhérer?
477 M. RACICOT: Évidemment que... Et je répète ce qu'on a énoncé un petit peu auparavant. L'établissement d'un comité de surveillance (appelez‑le comme vous voudrez), d'un comité aviseur, d'un comité de surveillance, d'une agence de surveillance, le terme lui‑même, je ne veux pas lui donner de nom précis, mais que ce comité‑là soit indépendant ou, à la limite, sous l'autorité du CRTC, pour moi, je veux dire, c'est... c'est quelque chose d'équivalent, c'est en tout cas une notion équivalente.
478 Il faut qu'on fasse rapport à votre agence, ou en tout cas, du moins au CRTC, des résultats de la surveillance comme telle du sous‑titrage à la télévision. Il faut que vous soyez en mesure de réagir rapidement et non pas par la voix de mécanismes différenciés (ou de mécanismes à retardement) et de revenir en audience ou et cetera.
479 Il faut que vous ayez une autorité directe, au moins pour plusieurs années. Par la suite, peut‑être qu'il sera possible de relâcher un petit peu le contrat, mais pas au moins, je dirais, pour les cinq prochaines années. Il faut absolument faire quelque chose par rapport à ça.
480 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: J'en suis rendue à mes questions sur les sujets dits complémentaires; et ça porte surtout sur les modalités d'échange avec les entreprises autant en télécommunication qu'avec les radiodiffuseurs.
481 Dans les échanges avec les fournisseurs de services, il y a toujours beaucoup d'information qui est donnée. Vous avez fait allusion, entre autres, les manuels d'utilisation de certains équipements. Et pour les personnes qui ont des déficiences auditives, sous quelle forme ces informations‑là sont‑elles pour vous le plus avantageusement disponibles, ou devraient l'être?
482 M. RACICOT: Actuellement, et je répète: La notion de compréhension du message (parce que le manuel d'utilisation d'un appareil technologique c'est un message qui est donné à un consommateur) et il doit l'être de façon la plus précise possible et disponible dans la langue qui leur est plus accessible en terme de consommateurs.
483 Heureusement (on doit le dire maintenant) Internet nous permet de diffuser des images, des vidéos ou des messages qui permettent de comprendre, je veux dire, finalement, ces notions‑là. Que ça soit par Internet ou que ça soit par un autre mécanisme, il est maintenant possible de diffuser des messages en langue signée, ce qui n'était pas le cas auparavant.
484 Donc, l'accroissement de l'utilisation de messages vidéos, que ce soit par le biais d'Internet, que ce soit par le biais de disques, de CD ou de DVD ou et cetera, il n'y a plus de barrière, maintenant, je veux dire, à l'utilisation de ce type de technologie‑là. Alors, je ne vois pas pourquoi on ne devrait pas en... premièrement recommander, je veux dire, l'augmentation et l'utilisation et probablement, en venir à l'obligation de le faire quelque part.
485 MME THERRIEN: J'aimerais aussi compléter.
486 Les manuels mériteraient aussi d'être adaptés dans un langage beaucoup plus simple et plus imagé. Ça ne servirait pas seulement qu'aux personnes sourdes gestuelles qui comprennent moins bien le français, mais ça servirait vraiment à des allophones, à des gens... à des dyslexiques qui ne comprennent pas les structures lorsqu'ils les lisent et ainsi de suite.
487 Alors, les sites Internet, les manuels mériteraient d'avoir tant les signes, mais tant de l'information visuelle qui aiderait tout le monde finalement.
488 M. RACICOT: Et je dois rajouter... Puis, si vous avez déjà eu affaire avec ces fameux manuels qui sont d'abord conçus en anglais et par la suite traduits par un dictionnaire ou un équipement de transcription souvent un peu déficient et que vous essayez de monter une tablette, un appareil quelconque à l'aide de ce manuel écrit en français, je pense que vous n'aurez pas le produit final escompté, au bout de la ligne, ou vous allez prendre six mois de plus pour le construire, quelque chose de même.
489 C'est très connu, je veux dire, que les manuels d'instruction traduits en français qui proviennent d'un pays étranger sont souvent très mal traduits. Alors, l'utilisation d'images, de pictogrammes ou en tout cas de ce type de technologie‑là (et on est capable maintenant de le faire) serait de loin appropriée.
490 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Votre commentaire se passe de commentaire.
491 Le type de votre groupe est le Centre québécois (et je souligne le mot québécois) de la déficience auditive. Au préambule de votre mémoire de juillet, vous ajoutez que votre groupe est le seul représentant les personnes francophones ayant une surdité au Canada... vivant avec une surdité au Canada.
492 Est‑ce que vous avez des contacts avec des personnes qui ont une déficience auditive et qui vivent à l'extérieur du Québec? Les francophones à l'extérieur du Québec, est‑ce que vous obtenez leurs commentaires? Est‑ce qu'eux vous contactent pour obtenir des services? Est‑ce qu'ils font appel à vous pour l'accessibilité de services en français en télécommunication et en radiodiffusion?
493 M. RACICOT: Il existe, à notre connaissance, une seule autre organisation qui regroupe des personnes qui sont francophones en Ontario, organisation avec laquelle on n'a malheureusement pas énormément de contacts, je l'avoue. Et il faut...
494 Et madame Therrien disait, au départ: Il faut aussi comprendre que notre organisation ne dispose pas d'un budget illimité. Au contraire, nous vivons avec une personne ou des fois deux personnes à notre emploi. Donc, nos moyens sont limités par rapport à ça.
495 Mais... et on le souligne, je veux dire. Notre volonté de coopérer ou de collaborer existe, c'est très clair, mais il faut vivre avec les moyens financiers qui nous sont impartis, ce qui est souvent très difficile à accomplir dans le quotidien.
496 MME THERRIEN: Bien souvent, les informations nous proviennent de gens du Québec qui ont des contacts avec ces francophones‑là. Donc, ce sont nos membres du Québec qui nous rapportent des situations ou des commentaires ou des plaintes vécus par les francophones hors Québec.
497 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Je vous remercie. Je n'ai plus d'autre question. Monsieur le Président?
498 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Est‑ce qu'il y a d'autres questions sur le Conseil? Non? Le Conseil juridique?
499 MME LEHOUX: Merci, Monsieur Katz. J'ai eux petites questions à vous poser.
500 Alors, dans un premier temps, étant donné que les services de relais vidéo et par Internet sont offerts (évidemment, par l'Internet) et que les usagers peuvent avoir les mêmes problèmes que le service VOIP local mobile, c'est‑à‑dire qu'on ne peut pas nécessairement déterminer d'où vient l'appel sans que la personne qui a fait l'appel donne ses coordonnées à l'opératrice, à cet égard, le Conseil, évidemment, a mis en place certaines protections dans la décision 2005‑21, qui exige entre autres aux compagnies de VOIP d'aviser leur clientèle de toute limite avant de commencer à fournir les services et pendant la durée du contrat de service. Puis, ils sont également tenus d'obtenir de leurs clients le consentement exprès à l'égard de ces limites.
501 De plus, le Conseil a également établi certaines obligations qui visent à déterminer l'endroit où se trouve la personne qui appelle le 9‑1‑1 en se servant du service VOIP local mobile.
502 Est‑ce que vous avez des commentai9res à faire concernant ces mesures puis est‑ce que ces mesures sont adéquates pour les personnes handicapées?
503 M. RACICOT: Votre question est très longue...
‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter
504 M. RACICOT: J'aimerais ça que vous la reprécisiez par sections, parce que...
505 Ce que je comprends ‑‑ et là, vous me préciserez ‑‑ ce que je comprends, c'est que vous me posez une question en rapport avec la détermination de l'endroit de l'appel et de l'obligation de le faire?
506 MME LEHOUX: En fait, c'est que ce qui s'est produit avec le service VOIP, c'est que lorsqu'il y a un appel qui était logé, on ne pouvait pas déterminer d'où venait l'appel sans que la personne qui faisait l'appel donne ses coordonnées. Donc, ce qui arrive, c'est que des fois, le service coupe. Ça fait que si le service coupe, bien, à ce moment‑là, on n'a pas... l'opératrice qui répond à l'appel n'a pas la coordonnée géographique de la personne.
507 Donc, pour faire face à ça, le Conseil a mis des mesures en places. Et, comme j'ai dit, ces mesures en place, bon bien, je ne les répéterai pas nécessairement, mais c'est des mesures qui aident, justement. Mais on voulait savoir si ces mesures‑là étaient utiles pour vous.
508 M. RACICOT: C'est‑à‑dire que toute mesure qui va permettre, par exemple, au service d'urgence d'être efficace et de permettre la transmission du message, on ne peut pas être contre. Ce que nous avons comme réserve c'est: le fait que les personnes handicapées (dans le cas de notre... nous autres, les personnes vivant avec une surdité) puissent être pénalisées en fonction de ça.
509 Et toute la question, c'est: On n'est pas encore capable de répondre avec exactitude à cette question‑là. Est‑ce que les personnes pourraient être pénalisées? Et c'est ça qui nous fait hésiter un peu à répondre.
510 Mais s'il faut que la personne soit enregistrée...
511 Parce qu'actuellement, je vous donne un exemple, pour que la personne puisse bénéficier d'une réduction de ses tarifs interurbains comme personne vivant avec une surdité, elle doit être enregistrée.
512 Donc, on n'a pas d'objection à ce que la personne soit enregistrée comme telle dans ce cas‑là. C'est: jusqu'où la personne pourrait être pénalisée. Et c'est cette question‑là qu'on n'est pas certain. Est‑ce que malgré les notions de confidentialité, malgré les notions de professionnalisme, est‑ce que...?
513 On le sait, il y a des listes qui circulent, il y a toutes sortes d'utilisation possibles qui peuvent être faites et comment est‑ce qu'on peut faire respecter ça?
514 C'est notre interrogation par rapport à ça: Jusqu'à quel point on pourrait avoir la certitude que la confidentialité est respectée et jusqu'à quel point vous pouvez en avoir la certitude, que le service respecte le professionnalisme comme tel auquel il est dû. J'aimerais vous répondre avec certitude à cette question‑là, mais vous voyez la limitation de mes interrogations.
515 MME LEHOUX: On était plus préocc... ‑‑ En fait, merci beaucoup pour votre réponse, mais on était plus préoccupé par le fait qu'on veut s'assurer aussi que les consommateurs soient bien avisés s'il y a une faille à la ‑‑ de fois, la technologie, tu sais, des fois les lignes coupent.
516 Alors, on veut juste s'assurer d'avoir les bons moyens en place pour que les personnes qui... les personnes sourdes ou malentendantes aient la possibilité d'être avisées de ces limites‑là avec la technologie qu'ils vont utiliser.
517 Donc, c'était plus à ce niveau‑là, la raison pour laquelle je posais ma question.
518 MME THERRIEN: Est‑ce que je peux juste compléter?
519 Lorsque vous parlez d'aviser des limites avant la signature du contrat de service, pour nous, notre... aussi, une inquiétude, c'est: Comment expliquer... comment les compagnies ou les entreprises expliqueront aux personnes sourdes gestuelles tout le contenu de ces contrats de service‑là qui sont souvent bien complexe?
520 Alors, pour leur permettre de signer quelque chose de manière éclairée... Alors, pour nous, on revient avec la nécessité de l'interprétariat et des documents adaptés et tout ça.
521 À partir de ce moment‑là, si nous sommes certains que la personne comprend ce qu'elle signe, j'adhère... je poursuis dans le même sens que monsieur Racicot. S'il y a des avantages, on n'y voit pas d'inconvénient.
522 MME LEHOUX: Je vous remercie. J'ai une dernière petite question à vous poser.
523 Est‑ce que vous pourriez nous donner des exemples de forfaits de services qui comprendraient seulement des services qui sont accessibles aux personnes vivant avec une surdité et que vous aimeriez voir le jour? Donc, on parle d'une offre de services comme telle. Est‑ce que vous pourriez nous donner un exemple?
524 M. RACICOT: On en parlait un petit peu tout à l'heure, puis je reviens là‑dessus. Et je donnais l'exemple de mon garçon qui utilise ce type de technologie‑là. Mon garçon utilise maintenant sa * Webcam +, qu'on appelle, c'est‑à‑dire sa caméra vidéo comme téléphone
525 Mais ce que je me suis aperçu, c'est que ce téléphone vidéo consomme de la bande passante. Et cette bande passante‑là m'est chargée à un coût supplémentaire, si je dépasse une certaine limite de bande passante.
526 Dans les faits, mon garçon utilise sa caméra vidéo comme téléphone régulier, c'est‑à‑dire qu'il le prend comme étant le service dont je paye à tous les mois, exemple, 25 $. Mais maintenant, au lieu d'avoir une téléphonie locale, d'avoir un service régulier local, je dois en plus payer de la bande passante qui s'ajoute, finalement, à mon prix initial de téléphonie locale. Est‑ce que je me fais bien comprendre?
527 Alors, à ce moment‑là, je me retrouve avec une facture qui, au lieu d'être, exemple: 25 $ pour mon service d'appels régulier qui serait le mien s'il n'y avait pas de problème de surdité, je me retrouve avec une facture de 35 $, 40 $, 45 $, dépendant de l'utilisation de sa bande passante. Et il n'a fait que des appels locaux.
528 Alors, si moi, j'utilisais ‑‑ et lui ‑‑ nous utilisions notre service d'appel local 24 heures par jour, 30 jours par mois, ça nous coûterait 25 $. Mais si lui l'utilise 24 heures par jour, 7 jours par semaine (ou 30 jours par mois), ça va nous coûter 150 $. Et pourtant, on utilise le même service, la technologie seulement a changé. Mais pourtant, c'est le même service d'appel local et régulier.
529 Alors, pourquoi est‑ce que le fait qu'il soit gestuel et qu'il communique en images vidéos devra nous coûter plus cher qu'une personne qui utilise la voix. Alors, qu'est‑ce qu'on pourrait...?
530 Je vous donne... Est‑ce qu'on pourrait jumeler ces services‑là? Est‑ce qu'on pourrait adapter les coûts à ce service‑là? Question qui fait appel à l'émergence de la nouvelle technologie vidéo, dont on n'a pas vraiment discuté encore, et qui s'adresse, finalement, à tous les fournisseurs Internet comme tels.
531 MME LEHOUX: Merci beaucoup.
532 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Je voudrais remercier le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive.
533 We will now break for lunch and reconveine at 1:15.
‑‑‑ Suspension à 1202 / Upon recessing at 1202
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1315 / Reprise à 1315
534 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please. We will commence this afternoon's session.
535 Madam Secretary...?
536 THE SECRETARY: Yes. We will begin our third presentation with Rothschild & Co. Ltd. Please introduce yourself and you will have 15 minutes for your presentation.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
537 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Thank you.
538 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is Eric Rothschild. I am the owner and President of Rothschild & Co. With me today is John Stubbs, an old friend and the owner of Stubbs Solutions.
539 It is a pleasure to be with you today. No doubt there is a broad range of issues that will be explored over the course of the hearing and we have already heard some of that this morning. For our part, John and I will focus on described video.
540 John and I have worked on access issues for Canadians with vision disabilities for the past decade; me as an advisor to the National Broadcast Reading Service and La Magnétothèque; John as a Manager at NBRS and at AudioVision Canada, which was Canada's first described video production house.
541 John and I each have over 30 years' experience in the broadcasting industry, hence the abundance of grey hair. We have worked in all aspects of television and radio, news, production, management, regulatory affairs, consulting. We have built stations, including one of the world's first all digital television stations.
542 Today, in addition to my consulting practice, I am a partner in an independent ISP and a partner in an independent production company producing content for distribution over the web.
543 One thing that has been consistent throughout both our careers is that we have reputations for coming up with creative solutions, for thinking outside the box, and certainly resolving access issues demands creative solutions.
544 We felt compelled to participate in these proceedings because we know the means exist to make described video available. It isn't complicated. It doesn't need to be expensive. It can happen right now.
545 It's a question of whether we have the resolve to make it happen.
546 Today we would like to speak to the six recommendations we made in our written submission.
547 Our first recommendation was that each Canadian program broadcast by over the air and analog specialty stations that would be made more accessible if it were described should be described. There is no need to describe play by play sports or newscasts or talk shows like The hour or CityLine, or morning shows like Canada AM, or music videos. They are already quite accessible. Just about everything else should be described.
548 Now, the CAB intervention said cost is the number one issue with description. They said it's too expensive. Let's look at the cost side of description.
549 In 2000 it cost $5,000 to describe an hour of described programming. Today it cost $1,500. That is a direct result of the Commission imposing description obligations. That led to a competitive market.
550 In going forward, prices could come down much more.
551 The CAB estimates 21 hours per week of described programs were broadcast last year on over the air stations. That comes to just under 1,100 hours. Half those hours were repeats. That means OTA stations commissioned about 550 original hours last year.
552 At $1,500 an hour, 550 hours of described programs means a total description market in Canada last year was about $825,000. Well, that's barely enough revenue to support even one company, yet there at least four players competing for those description dollars.
553 What it means is that description is a cottage industry. No one company produces in volume. Every show is a one‑off. It is the most expensive way to produce anything. Cars, computers, appliances, it's all the same, including described programs. If there is no volume, it is expensive. That's why it cost $1,500 an hour.
554 If we want to bring down the cost, we need to produce in volume. We need to produce more described programs.
555 But even at $1,500 it can be argued that description is affordable. $1,500 is a fraction of 1 per cent of the budget of a one‑hour drama. Even with factual programs, $1,500 is less than 1 per cent of a typical one‑hour budget.
556 Let's try and put cost into the bigger picture.
557 The Commission's most recent communications monitoring report shows that in 2007 CTV Toronto broadcast 375 hours of priority programs. CanWest Toronto broadcast 438 hours. Assuming that there were no repeats, at $1,500 an hour it would have cost roughly $600,000 to describe every priority program on CTV. The same for CanWest.
558 If there were repeats ‑‑ and we know there were ‑‑ it would have been even cheaper.
559 $600,000 is one‑fifth of one per cent of the $300 million the CMR says was spent on non‑news programs last year, a fifth of 1 per cent to describe every priority program. The impact would have been huge, the cost not unreasonable.
560 Priority programs were the only programs where we could find specific numbers of hours of programs broadcast. I'm sure that the Commission has the data to do a similar analysis based on all hours of Canadian programs broadcast or as a percentage of the total spend on Canadian programs, or as a percentage of the total hours and total spend on Canadian and foreign programs.
561 The bottom line is that in the context of overall program spending, even at $1,500 an hour, it can be argued that description is affordable.
562 As I said previously, it will only get cheaper as described programs are produced in volume. Just like with captioning, the cost of which has dropped dramatically over the years.
563 John...?
564 MR. STUBBS: Our second recommendation focused on awareness. Today trying to find a described program is an exercise in frustration. There is no mention of description in most TV listings. There is no mention on the EPG, the Electronic Program Guide and there are virtually no on‑air announcements.
565 The CAB intervention says broadcasters and distributors are frustrated by the challenge of promoting awareness amongst people with vision disabilities.
566 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, given that no one tells people that a program is described, how could we expect anyone to be aware?
567 There is a simple and cost‑effective solution: tell people that a program is described.
568 We recommend that broadcasters should be required to put the description logo on the screen and make an audio announcement before each program they air that is described. They should repeat the announcement at each commercial break.
569 Captioning announcements are a profit centre. The same could happen with description announcements. Tell vision impaired viewers that a program is described, make them aware. They will respond.
570 Our third recommendation concerns the digital set‑top box.
571 The Commission will relieve a BDU of the obligation to distribute description in analog if they provide free digital set‑top boxes to the vision impaired. The Commission's decision was a creative solution, but virtually no one knows that the set‑top boxes are available. No one has told them.
572 That's why we recommend that BDUs be required to promote the fact that the free set‑top boxes are available.
573 One way to get the message out would be to advertise through voiceprint and the CNIB.
574 We also recommend that BDUs should use 5 per cent of the local avails on American cable services that are reserved for their use to promote the free set‑top boxes. We realize that the Commission has announced a review of its policy on the use of local avails. This may change the landscape, but until the policy does change we stand by this recommendation.
575 Tell people with vision disabilities that free set‑top boxes are available. They will ask for them.
576 Eric...?
577 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Our fourth recommendation was that BDUs should train their customer service representatives in how to deal with vision impaired callers. They should know about the free set‑top boxes. They should be trained to tell callers how to access services like voiceprint or described video.
578 The CAB intervention says it's complicated because there are so many different models of set‑top boxes. That's true, but surely it's reasonable to expect that each BDU can and should train its CSRs in how to use the features of the set‑top boxes that their employer distributes.
579 Surely they can and should be trained how to activate features like accessing the description soundtrack. In fact, with some set‑top boxes it is my understanding the CSR can actually remotely access the digital set‑top box to activate those features.
580 Bottom line, better training could be part of the solution.
581 Our fifth recommendation concerns TV listings. As John was saying, today it is virtually impossible to find out whether a program is described. There is no on‑air announcement and is not mentioned in TV listings.
582 It seems reasonable to expect that BDUs should include whether a program is described in the Electronic Program Guide.
583 We also recommend the Commission should encourage broadcasters to include whether a program is described in TV listings. Listings already include details like whether it's closed captioned, whether it's a new episode. Surely they could mention description.
584 Our sixth recommendation is whether broadcasters should be required to log whether a program is aired with description. I have to admit I recently learned that broadcasters are already expected to do this to show they are meeting their conditions of licence. But perhaps it's not being done, because if it is being done why did the CAB intervention have to estimate the number of hours broadcast weekly. It is sure to be part of the public record.
585 We recommend the number of hours described broadcast should be included in future CMRs and that way we will all know what progress is being made.
586 We would like to close with two more observations on the intervention filed by the CAB.
587 It raises concerns about the amount of bandwidth that we require to distribute the description soundtrack. It warns that bandwidth is finite.
588 Mr. Chairman, it has always been my understanding that serving those with disabilities is an obligation subject only to resources or technology being available. No one disputes that the technology is available. In fact, it is already in place.
589 There is no merit to the argument that bandwidth constraints are a real obstacle to the distribution of described programs or the argument that cost is a real obstacle. The Commission shouldn't have to decide which types of programs are important enough to require description.
590 That's why we recommend that going forward all Canadian programs should be described and the Commission should demand that the required bandwidth be made available.
591 One final comment on the CAB intervention.
592 It refers to the fact that the U.S. court struck down the FCC requirement for the broadcast of described programs. That's true. What the intervention failed to mention is that legislation was introduced in June 2008 to reinstate the original FCC rules. In fact, the new legislation went further than the FCC. It required that remote control devices have a single button activation for closed captioning and described video within 18 months of passage of the legislation.
593 The Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology is the lead organization behind this American measure. They tell us that the legislation will be before Congress early in 2009. Passage of this legislation should resolve concerns raised by the CAB about the availability of described American programs. It would also deal with the concerns about set‑top boxes and remote control devices.
594 Mr. Chairman, Canada has a long and great tradition of recognizing and proactively addressing the needs and rights of those with disabilities. Canadian broadcasters have always done their part on screen and off screen. The CRTC has provided important leadership. It is thanks to the Commission that Canada has reading services and described television programming for those with vision disabilities.
595 No one disputes that the means and mechanisms exist to describe and distribute Canadian programs. Canadians with vision disabilities will be delighted when popular American programs are broadcast with description, and it looks like that will happen soon.
596 In the meantime, we recommend that the Commission and Canadian broadcasters should focus on what we can control, and what we can control is the description and distribution of Canadian programs and promotion of those programs.
597 Perhaps you remember the movie Field of Dreams: if you build it, they will come.
598 Mr. Chairman, this is the Field of Dreams for the vision impaired. If you describe it, they will watch.
599 Thank you for this opportunity to share our views and we would be pleased to try and answer any questions you might have.
600 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Stubbs, for your presentation.
601 I have several questions to ask of you.
602 What I wanted to do, I think, is get a better understanding of your proposal, your recommendations, because you emphasize the words Canadian programming both in your submission of July 23rd and your submission this morning.
603 Are you saying that you would like to see the CRTC look favourably upon a decision that would limit the described video to Canadian programming?
604 MR. ROTHSCHILD: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not proposing that you limit anything to Canadian programming, but I think that Canadian programming is what you can control. We can't control whether Americans or any foreign country describes its programs and we can control whether Canadian programs are described. You can say that they have to be described.
605 The American programs, if I use that as an example, it's our understanding that many American programs arrive here, first‑run programs, literally as they go to air with no advance ‑‑ they are not delivered in advance with sufficient time for Canadian broadcasters to have them described.
606 Fair enough. Perhaps we have to wait on those foreign programs, or at least the first‑run foreign programs, to arrive with description for the other countries to act.
607 I think you have encouraged Canadian broadcasters to acquire described versions of foreign programs whenever possible. I think that is a great thing and that should continue. You have also told them that they are obligated to do certain minimums for over the airs and some of the specialties of Canadian programs that need to be described and, on a going forward basis, you can continue that. You have the authority to do that.
608 I don't think any of us have the authority to order the Americans or any other foreign producers to describe their programs.
609 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I recognize your position that the price per hour would come down with more volume but let's, for the time being, assume that the rates are what they are.
610 Have you taken your suggestion here and extended it out to see what the total cost to the system would be if we took just Canadian programming and added on not just those genres that are there today, but the other genres as well and what that would mean to the system?
611 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I wish I could say I have, Mr. Chairman. I attempted to get those statistics from the Commission in preparation for the hearing, but unfortunately that level of detailed information is not available. That's why in our presentation in‑chief we suggest the Commission has that data and certainly you have the analysts who can do that, to do that equation.
612 I can give you ‑‑ you know, all I can give you is an estimate of what I think it probably is, but the Commission has the actual number of hours.
613 THE CHAIRPERSON: I would be interested in your estimate.
614 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, John and I have talked about this many times as we prepared for today, hoping you wouldn't ask us that question.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
615 MR. ROTHSCHILD: The best I can do, Mr. Chairman, is to say if the typical broadcast week is something in the order of 128 hours, and if we figure roughly half of that is Canadian, so that takes us down to about 64, and then you say well, how much is news or sports programming ‑‑ because we are talking now about a CTV, a CanWest, a Rogers, all of whom have extensive news programming and extensive play‑by‑play sports.
616 Let's say half of it, maybe 25 hours a week roughly is perhaps what we're talking about describing. So what would that cost? I figure maybe $1 million a year per network.
617 So $1 million a year perhaps for the entire CTV network, $1 million a year for the entire CanWest network.
618 That's as close as I can come to without knowing the actual statistical data that the Commission might have. But I look at it and I say it's about $1 million or even more spread across ‑‑ again, you have the figures that I don't have against what is the total program spend, what is the total revenue.
619 It doesn't sound like a lot of money against what I expect them to be doing.
620 THE CHAIRPERSON: When you do your math, have you included the specialty programs, the Canadian specialty programs as well that are owned by the conventional broadcasters or are you limiting yourself just to the conventional over the air broadcasters?
621 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Everything I have been discussing to this point has been in reference to conventional over the air channels.
622 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now let's get back to the $1,500 and volume may get prices down.
623 Are you aware of any other technologies that might be on the horizon that would actually leapfrog the pricing of described video beyond just volume related benefits?
624 MR. ROTHSCHILD: My associate Mr. Stubbs is going to give you the answer that I told him we probably didn't want to put onto the record, which is about voice synthesis.
625 There is technology available where the description could be done with a voice synthesizer and obviously that would make things ‑‑ it means all we would have to do is write a script and then produce ‑‑ the voice could be done without paying a talent fee.
626 John...?
627 MR. STUBBS: Right now the way description is produced is a writer will sit down with their copy of the program, will write a script with the narration. It will then be passed on to a technician and a narrator, an announcer and then the whole program will be put together. So you are dealing with quite a number of people.
628 The advancements that have been made ‑‑ there is a program called CapScribe which is a desktop tool to actually have one person do the entire process on a regular Macintosh desktop computer. And not only ‑‑ the person could actually describe it themselves using their own voice or it also has the built‑in ability to use voice synthesis and put that in.
629 So it really streamlines the process in an incredible way.
630 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, it's not like we are saying that's the way description should go. We are saying that there are technologies like this available today that can be used, and it will be up to the marketplace to decide whether they feel it's appropriate.
631 I mean the marketplace may say well, description has greater value to them if it is done by a human being because it's something that helps them with, for instance, DVD sales and it's another feature that can be added to DVD sales to make it more marketable.
632 I don't know, but there are alternatives.
633 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us where these voice synthesizers are being used today?
634 MR. STUBBS: In screen readers. When a person with vision disabilities uses a computer, they use big synthesis. Many talking books are available with that. A Mac laptop computer these days comes with that and you can have it read Word documents, any kind of document that you have on a Mac.
635 THE CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, has it been trialed at all in a broadcasting milieu at all?
636 MR. STUBBS: I don't believe so. I know I've used it on broadcast programs only as an exercise for myself, but I don't believe any programs using that have been broadcast.
637 MR. ROTHSCHILD: That's specifically why we are not sitting here saying here is the solution to the problem, here is what is going to bring the price down. We think the volume is a much more natural, much more obvious way that prices will come down.
638 I don't know if the marketplace is ready for synthesized voice.
639 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure my colleague, Commissioner Lamarre, will ask this question, but I will go first.
640 Does this synthesis that is being used right now, these synthesizers, work equally in both official languages in Canada?
641 MR. STUBBS: Yes. There is no problem with either one.
642 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We currently have a formula for the use of described video for certain genres and there has been requests to go beyond the basic genres that are there today.
643 Can you perhaps give us your expertise and knowledge as to which other genres would lend themselves readily to described video beyond the ones that we have currently identified?
644 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Mr. Chairman, I think that the ones that you have already identified, you know, are key genres, although given that the statistics show the overwhelming number of Canadians with vision disabilities tend to be older, it was ‑‑ who is really benefiting from the children's program being described, the number of Canadians, is questionable, quite frankly.
645 But certainly with the other genres that you have, they are the ones that should be described.
646 Then if I just go through the program categories beyond that, you know in formal education, recreation and leisure could also benefit from description in some forms, and certainly there may be cases of variety programs or general entertainment as human interest that could benefit from it.
647 I think that it comes to what we were talking about both in our written presentation and our presentation today. It's hard to understand where the benefit would be to allow description to qualify as meeting their obligations for news or play‑by‑play sports.
648 Now, I know this morning there was discussion about the fact with the CNIB, about wanting to hear stock prices during newscasts. And absolutely there would be a benefit for that and the Commission has talked about that in previous decisions. It has talked about it as audio description and has encouraged broadcasters, television broadcasters, to have audio description when they put graphics on the screen.
649 Certainly that would be a major benefit to news, play‑by‑play sports, if there was audio description. But that is not the same as described video which we are talking about here today.
650 Certainly it would be hard to see that the objective of making the system more accessible would be met by allowing, for instance, news or play‑by‑play sports or talk shows or music video clips and the type of things I talked about in the presentation in‑chief to qualify as categories.
651 It really comes down, Mr. Chairman, to will description make the program more accessible?
652 If the broadcaster feels that a program won't be made more accessible with description, fine. Then they can come in and make that argument.
653 Otherwise, why not describe it?
654 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will be asking the BDUs to tell us how many of these free set‑top boxes have gone out there. But do you know at all offhand to what extent this has actually infiltrated the marketplace?
655 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I don't know anybody that's aware of them, Mr. Chairman.
656 I believe, John, you called to try to get one and nobody could tell us ‑‑ the program wasn't being implemented yet.
657 MR. STUBBS: The CSR that I spoke to wasn't aware that there were free set‑top boxes available.
658 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
659 Mr. Stubbs, in your evidence you talked about a study in 2006 whereby only 26 per cent of described programs were distributed. That was a 2006 study.
660 Have you had a chance to polish that study up or review it at all?
661 MR. STUBBS: I haven't done another study but I have ‑‑ I am a fan of described video. I enjoy listening to it.
662 In the exercise of trying to pick it up, it has definitely been more available.
663 The difference has changed in that prior to this time at least they would announce when a program was described. Now there seems to be a lack of announcements so it's harder to find it.
664 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Also what we found ‑‑ and again, we didn't do another study in preparation for the hearing, but we did over the past number of weeks do some monitoring to try to see well, is it out there?
665 It is out there but it was much harder to find than it was in 2006 because it seems to be less prominent in ‑‑ at least two years ago you seemed to be able to find it in listings. Now you can't.
666 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it not odd that the industry has gone to the trouble to describe video, albeit not to the extent that people want, and yet they are not marketing it or promoting it at all? They are spending the money.
667 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I would agree, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure that you'll have a chance to talk about that with the CAB and its panel when it comes up here. There are representatives of all the major players there.
668 I don't understand it and, quite frankly, that is why we are here. We came here ‑‑ there is nothing in this for John and I other than we think that these are interests of public interest that should be discussed and out in the open like this, because we don't understand it.
669 THE CHAIRPERSON: Have you been involved at all in consultations with the various broadcasters or CAB in this regard at all?
670 MR. ROTHSCHILD: No, we have not. I mean, we have been involved ‑‑ I do ongoing work with the national broadcast reading service and give them advice, but with other broadcasters, no.
671 I have, upon occasion, volunteered my services to the CAB. They have never taken me up on the offer.
672 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is the National Broadcast Radio Services a member of CAB?
673 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I believe they are, as is my company.
674 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you would be involved in any of their activities or consultations that take place and you have never seen fit to inject yourself into the process?
675 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I have never been invited to be part of the process, Mr. Chairman.
676 THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are all my questions.
677 My fellow Commissioners?
678 Commissioner Lamarre has a question.
679 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
680 I wanted to follow up. You have identified, as well as increasing the amounts of described video, a lot of the other challenges with accessing the described video that is there today, just as the conversation just went on about awareness and promotion.
681 One of the things that interested me in your comments was your reference to some of the limitations of set‑top boxes and remotes.
682 What I would like to understand, and truly understand because the record gives little pieces here and there, is from your experience ‑‑ you said you are users of described video and you are also active in the areas of described video.
683 Assuming you know that a program is going to be aired in described video, how difficult would it be for a person with a disability to be able to actually functionally get there?
684 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Commissioner, thanks to the Commission's decision to allow the deployment of the digital set‑top boxes, we have taken a major leap forward in being able to access the described soundtrack, because the digital set‑top boxes allow you to access ‑‑ there are a couple of buttons that need to be pressed and you can activate the SAP.
685 It used to be that every brand of television was different, and it was all over the map, but now, because of the Commission's decision to allow the cable operators to deploy the set‑top boxes, with Rogers you have a standard type of box, and similarly with the other BDUs.
686 In fact, you can call the CSR and they can tell you how to access that quite readily.
687 It is still a challenge, if you are completely blind, to see the buttons. It is not a perfect solution. The perfect solution is open description, which The Accessible Channel will offer, or which you find on ExpressVu. They have the virtual channels with open description.
688 That is the easiest for a person with a vision disability to access, open description.
689 The digital set‑top boxes have been a leap forward because now there is consistency in terms of the process to get there. A CSR can help you, and as I said in the presentation‑in‑chief, if you call for assistance to your cable operator, in many cases they can actually remotely activate it for you.
690 But it is still not a perfect solution. It is not a one‑button solution.
691 John spent a long time in the analog world developing a one‑button remote to access the SAP, and the legislation in the United States that we were referring to talks about making it simpler, both for captioning and for description, to have a one‑botton solution.
692 That is a very long‑winded answer, Commissioner, I'm sorry.
693 It's a lot easier today ‑‑ it's a lot better today than it was two or three years ago, before the digital set‑top box decision, and when every television set was different.
694 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you. I take your point that it's better.
695 On the record I read some indications, for example, that every time you turn a station, if you were to change channels, you are back through it. I don't expect that you want to call the CSR every time you want to turn a channel.
696 Or, for example, in a household, which I believe is quite common, where you have a household of people that are ‑‑ you know, not everybody is lacking sight, so you are sharing it and, once again, you can't turn it to that and have it there forever.
697 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Commissioner, if this is my opportunity to share with you what I think would be a better solution, I think that a better solution might be to say that, for instance, the cable operator should have a standard CTV/Canwest/Rogers or CBC feed ‑‑ the standard feed, and they should also have an alternate feed with open description, and that could be simulcast at the same time as the standard feed.
698 It would be similar to what ExpressVu has done with having virtual channels, but this would actually be at the same time as the normal CTV feed in Toronto is being fed to Toronto area customers ‑‑ you could have a CTV version and an alternate version with open description.
699 That would be one way to handle the main four conventional signals in a marketplace.
700 With speciality, if you wanted to do it, you could say to the specialty stations ‑‑ most of them are on a six‑hour wheel ‑‑ say that one of the wheel plays should be a play with open description.
701 That is just a setting in the video server for when it plays out.
702 It wouldn't cost anything extra to the broadcaster to do this. It would mean that there would be open description for the four main over‑the‑air networks. It would mean that there would be an open play per day for the specialties. There is an alternative.
703 Another alternative is what we have talked about with having to manipulate ‑‑ to make your way through the set‑top box remote control. Though it is much better than it used to be, as we said, it is not a perfect solution.
704 Or, call a customer service representative. But, again, it's not a perfect solution.
705 I would argue that it's an evolutionary process, but the idea of having an alternate version of the main four networks would certainly help to resolve this in a major way.
706 I know that the Commission's decision on BDU regs ‑‑ you were talking about eliminating the mirroring, the obligation to mirror the analog in digital. There are going to be a lot of channels freed up; perhaps four could be dedicated to an alternate version with open description for the four main networks.
707 All we are trying to do is offer some creative solutions, Commissioner, they are not perfect solutions.
708 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you for that. I have just one more question on it.
709 You referenced the legislation in the States and your expectation that, should that pass, the result would be some resolution, I guess, by equipment manufacturers of these problems.
710 Is that what you meant by that?
711 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I did.
712 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So is that an option, as well?
713 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Absolutely, and thank you for making sure that I got that back on the record.
714 Absolutely, that is definitely another step toward resolving it.
715 But, again, it will be an evolution, because we know that BDUs have quite an investment in the current generation of set‑top boxes. So it will be an evolution to the next generation of set‑top boxes.
716 I think, again, it needs creative thinking to come up with measures that get us through, as we evolve toward a time when the set‑top boxes have resolved the issue, toward a time when American broadcasters are producing first‑run programming with description, to when other foreign programming is available with description.
717 We have to move forward. That's why I come back to saying that the one thing we can control are Canadian programs and the promotion of those programs.
718 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you, those are my questions.
719 THE CHAIRPERSON: I look forward to hearing the response from the industry to your proposal this afternoon.
720 Commissioner Lamarre.
721 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
722 First off, you talked about four competing players, as far as producing descriptive video is concerned. Is that for the English market only, or are you including producers in the French market?
723 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I was referring to the English‑language market, Commissioner.
724 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: So the comparison regarding the expenses, based on the $1,500 per hour rate, is for the English market also.
725 MR. ROTHSCHILD: My understanding is that some of the ‑‑ at least two of the four that I talked about are prepared and willing to produce in French, and at those rates.
726 You would have to talk to them about that to confirm that, but that's my understanding.
727 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: If I understand correctly, your consulting effort, as far as descriptive video is concerned, is mainly targeted at the English market in Canada, so far.
728 MR. ROTHSCHILD: That's correct, Commissioner.
729 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Are you aware of an equivalent French Stubbs/Rotschild pair somewhere in Quebec?
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
730 MR. ROTSCHILD: No, we are not.
731 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: You are not. Okay.
732 Now, my next question ‑‑ I am not sure that it's a fair question to ask you, so don't be shy to tell me if you think I shouldn't be asking it.
733 You referenced the one‑botton remote for descriptive video ‑‑ and, Mr. Stubbs, you were actually working on it at some point, so maybe it is a fair question.
734 I do make note ‑‑ and thank you for providing the information about the legislation in the U.S., but, quite frankly, I am not sure that I want to bet my money on U.S. legislation.
735 Let's assume for the moment that this legislation will not go through and that we are faced with the current situation. What I am wondering is, in your experience in exchanges with equipment providers, what is the issue about getting a remote with just this one button for descriptive video?
736 I realize that a lot of people often talk about the fact that the Canadian market is smaller than the U.S. market. Agreed. But, at the same time, the Norwegian market is much smaller than the U.K. market; nonetheless, you can find in Norwegia equipment that has Norwegian specified features.
737 Do you have a sense of how much the number really is an issue, or is it just an issue of stating the requirement in an RFP, and, basically, boldly asking for it?
738 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Commissioner, it is a difficult question for us to answer. I take your point, it seems that there are smaller markets that can specify their needs and have equipment developed to meet their needs.
739 That said, and I said it again in the presentation‑in‑chief, it's a question of resolve. If someone tells BDUs here that they need to make that part of the specifications, then they can probably make it happen.
740 But, clearly, there hasn't been sufficient demand on a worldwide basis to see it happen anywhere to date.
741 We haven't seen it anywhere. It's not just Canada, it's anywhere.
742 Perhaps I am more of an optimist than you, Commissioner, but I am optimistic that in the United States we will see some progress. I take heart in the fact that the legislation was originally introduced during the Bush era, and now we move into a different era, where we think there may be more receptiveness to that type of social legislation and that it is going forward.
743 Let's hope that if the Americans do it, then it will prime the pump and there will be a volume demand on a global basis, and we will certainly have it here in Canada.
744 But if it's within the Commission's jurisdiction to tell BDUs that they should make it part of their parameters, that could be another part of the process to make it happen.
745 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Okay. Thank you for your response.
746 And I stand corrected, I should have said "Norway", not "Norwegia". Sorry about that.
747 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
748 Commissioner Denton.
749 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Mr. Rothschild, good afternoon. In contra‑distinction to the CAB, you say that there is no merit to the argument that bandwidth constraints are a real obstacle to the distribution of described programs.
750 Would either of you please elaborate on that?
751 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Commissioner, the bandwidth is available. There is bandwidth.
752 How much bandwidth is required for the description soundtrack? You can put many description soundtracks into the amount of bandwidth that it takes for a single channel.
753 Now that the Commission has already decided that BDUs will no longer have to mirror ‑‑ what is it, roughly 100 channels from analog that they have today on digital?
754 There is bandwidth today.
755 If there is a desire to put a new service on, the bandwidth is found.
756 In fact, every one of the digital channels today has that capability already there, Commissioner. We were talking with Commissioner Molnar about that. It's right there already as an alternate language feature. The soundtrack is there. It is already built into the system they had, Commissioner.
757 That's why I say that it's not a real argument.
758 COMMISSIONER DENTON: And not being a real argument; therefore, you don't think ‑‑ there is no validity to that claim.
759 Is that correct?
760 MR. ROTHSCHILD: That's correct.
761 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.
762 Now, the second point that you were making, or the argument, was that the cost is a real obstacle. I invite you to elaborate on why you don't believe that the cost is a real obstacle, because these are important matters for us to determine the practicality of whatever might emerge.
763 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Commissioner, I go back to what I was talking about with the Chairman a little while ago, in terms of saying: What is the cost in terms of the overall spend on programming that the over‑the‑air broadcasters are spending?
764 What is the cost as a percentage of Canadian programming spending?
765 What is the cost in terms of Canadian and foreign spending?
766 What is the cost against a measure of their revenue?
767 Again, by any one of those measures, I think you will find that it is less than 1 percent, on an annualized basis, against what they are spending.
768 And if it's less than 1 percent, in my experience, that is not a material cost.
769 That's why I said that it was without merit. When you are talking that type of percentage, Mr. Chairman ‑‑ or Commissioner ‑‑ I say that it's definitely a realistic expense and the type of money they can afford.
770 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you for the elevation of my rank.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
771 COMMISSIONER DENTON: That completes my questions. Thank you.
772 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
773 I would ask Legal if they have any questions.
774 They do.
775 MS POPE: I have one question, thank you.
776 Do you have any comments on the value of audio EPGs for Bell ExpressVu to announce described video programming?
777 We would like to hear your views on that.
778 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm sorry, I am not sure that I understood the question.
779 MS POPE: The audio EPG ‑‑
780 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes.
781 MS POPE: We would like to have your views on that.
782 MR. ROTHSCHILD: We think it's a good thing.
783 MR. STUBBS: It's great. It gives you an audio rundown of the schedule of programs that are available with description.
784 One of the difficulties that I experienced with that was that it's not synchronized, so what you are seeing on the screen has no relationship to what you are listening to.
785 So if you have low vision, it becomes very confusing. And if you are fully sighted, it's very confusing trying to figure out ‑‑ what are they talking about? Is it that show or ‑‑ because there is no relationship between the two.
786 MR. ROTHSCHILD: The notion of doing it is a good thing. The way it's being done could be improved.
787 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have one more follow‑up question from Commissioner Denton.
788 COMMISSIONER DENTON: From my notes, I heard you make the bold claim in relation to ‑‑ you said something to the effect that a better solution is that the cable operator should have a standard feed, and then have an alternative feed with open description broadcast at the same time for the main four networks.
789 That is roughly what I heard you say.
790 And then you made the claim that it costs nothing extra to the broadcaster to do this.
791 Can you justify that statement, please?
792 MR. ROTHSCHILD: It's a simulcast of the feed that they are already putting out with open description.
793 Does it constitute another window, if that's what you are asking?
794 I don't anticipate that there is any extra ‑‑ it wouldn't cost an extra window. It is already being done on ExpressVu.
795 What I am describing has been going on for five years on ExpressVu, Commissioner. The only difference is that ExpressVu does it as a virtual channel. You go to the channel and find the simulcast on ExpressVu today.
796 I am suggesting, why not have the whole feed of CTV or Canwest or CBC simulcast, as opposed to having to go to a virtual channel just to find the individual shows that are simulcast.
797 It would be simpler ‑‑ it would make it easier for a person with vision disabilities to find the feed and know where it is.
798 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you, that puts it on the record.
799 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Rothschild. That concludes this portion of the presentation.
800 Madam Secretary, why don't you introduce the next panel, and we will take a five‑minute recess while they get up to the table.
801 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Je demanderais maintenant au panel numéro 4, Quebecor Media inc., au nom de Vidéotron ltée et de Groupe TVA, de procéder à la table de présentation. Merci.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1408 / Suspension à 1408
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1413 / Reprise à 1413
802 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous allons procéder avec Quebecor Media inc. Veuillez vous présenter. Vous avez 15 minutes pour votre présentation.
PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
803 M. TRÉPANIER : Merci.
804 Je suis le président du comité d'audition. Mesdames, messieurs les conseillers et membres du personnel du Conseil, mon nom est Édouard Trépanier. Je suis vice‑président, Affaires réglementaires, et mon collègue est Dennis Béland, directeur, Affaires réglementaires télécommunications, tous deux de Quebecor Media.
805 Notre entreprise contrôle TVA, le réseau de télévision privé le plus regardé au Québec, et Vidéotron, une entreprise qui offre un ensemble de services de télécommunication et de distribution de radiodiffusion au Québec.
806 Nous avons un historique de collaboration avec les associations de personnes handicapées, ce qui nous a permis d'innover dans le passé, avec la création d'un décodeur analogique qui intégrait des fonctions de réception de sous‑titrage pour malentendants et avec la mise au point d'un logiciel de reconnaissance de la voix permettant à TVA de sous‑titres des émissions en direct.
807 Par ailleurs, probablement à cause d'efforts considérables mis à transformer Vidéotron en une entreprise concurrentielle qui offre au public une cinquantaine de forfaits et de services de communication, nous constatons que nous n'avons pas revu récemment nos pratiques de services aux personnes handicapées.
808 Nous nous présentons donc devant vous aujourd'hui sans prétention quant aux services que nous offrons aux personnes handicapées. D'ailleurs, nous remercions le Conseil d'avoir lancé la présente instance car il s'agit d'une excellente occasion de faire un examen en profondeur des services que nous offrons à ce segment de la clientèle.
809 Nous sommes fiers de la qualité de notre service... excusez‑moi. Nous sommes fiers de la qualité du service que nous offrons à la clientèle, et nous croyons que... excusez‑moi.
810 Cela dit, il reste place... il y avait un manque dans mon texte ici. Cela dit, il reste place à l'amélioration. Nous y travaillons et nous allons continuer d'y travailler. Évidemment, avec plus de 10 000 appels par jour, il arrive occasionnellement que certaines histoires d'horreurs se rendent à nos oreilles. Ça arrive encore, même si on croit qu'on a l'un des meilleurs services à la clientèle dans l'industrie. Nous ne laissons jamais ces cas sans correction et nous avons même une unité de gens dédiés à des actions correctives.
811 Chers membres du Conseil, le service à la clientèle de Vidéotron n'est pas encore parfait, mais nous croyons avoir l'un des meilleurs dans l'industrie des communications.
812 Dennis.
813 M. BÉLAND : De façon plus particulière, nous offrons des services dédiés aux personnes handicapées : vidéodescription, sous‑titrage, service de relais téléphonique, service 411 gratuit pour clients désignés, factures et autres documents en média substitut.
814 Est‑ce exceptionnel? Non. Est‑ce supérieurs aux autres entreprises canadiennes? Probablement pas.
815 C'est pourquoi nous allons profiter de l'instance en cours pour mieux comprendre les besoins, pour nous rapprocher des associations de personnes handicapées, et pour préparer les assises d'une consultation plus formelle avec les divers groupes d'intérêts afin de pouvoir servir ce segment du public et de notre clientèle de la meilleure façon possible.
816 Nous nous présentons devant vous avec une grande ouverture et nous sommes certains que nous allons apprendre beaucoup au cours des prochains jours.
817 Suite à ce processus public du Conseil, nous nous engageons à initier une démarche de collaboration avec les associations québécoises concernées, de façon à préciser les services que nous pouvons offrir et à établir un plan de mise en oeuvre. En collaboration avec l'industrie canadienne de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications, nous pourrions déposer notre plan d'action au Conseil, si désiré.
818 Grâce à la concurrence que les entreprises se livrent, nous voulons devenir un exemple parmi les entreprises de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion des pays industrialisés.
819 Nous vous remercions de l'attention portée à nos propos et nous sommes disposés à répondre à vos questions.
820 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci.
821 Nous commençons nos questions avec Conseillère Lamarre.
822 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Bonjour, Monsieur Trépanier, Monsieur Béland.
823 Ce que je vais vous dire en introduction, je ne sais pas si vous allez trouver que c'est une bonne ou une mauvaise nouvelle. J'apprécie que votre présentation a été aussi courte parce que, à l'image de l'ampleur des activités de Quebecor, on a beaucoup de terrain à couvrir avec les questions pour la première partie de l'après‑midi.
824 Alors, je vais, donc, aborder les différents sujets dans l'ordre qui m'apparaît le plus logique, compte tenu qu'il y a parfois des chevauchements entre les sujets. Donc, c'est possible que, dans le cadre de vos réponses, je vous demande, à l'occasion, de réserver cette partie‑là de la réponse pour un peu plus tard. Ça ne devrait pas arriver trop souvent, mais si ça arrive, n'en soyez pas vexé, et je vais prendre des notes, et vous aussi, j'en suis certaine, on n'oubliera rien.
825 Alors, en premier, je vais vous poser des questions sur ce qui est intimement lié à la production et la diffusion du contenu, soit le sous‑titrage et la vidéodescription. Ensuite, on va aborder le volet de la distribution terrestre, les programmes de radiodiffusion par Vidéotron. Finalement, on va examiner les sujets liés aux services de télécommunication qui sont fournis par Vidéotron.
826 Dans le cadre de mes questions, je ferai quelquefois référence à vos deux soumissions. Je vais quand même prendre soin de citer le passage auquel je fais référence, mais je vous suggère de les avoir sous la main, si ce n'est pas déjà fait.
827 Monsieur Trépanier, je vais vous adresser au départ mes questions directement, mais si vous voyez que monsieur Béland peut être la victime désignée pour répondre, eh bien, vous le désignerez.
828 Alors, allons‑y avec le sous‑titrage. J'aurais besoin de quelques précisions en ce qui concerne les données que vous nous avez fournies dans votre soumission du 10 juillet.
829 En haut de la page 3, en réponse à notre question au sujet de nombre de plaintes reçues en ce qui concerne la qualité du sous‑titrage, vous répondez que du 5 janvier 2004 au 16 juin 2008, donc, sur une période d'à peu près quatre ans et demi, vous avez reçu 300 plaintes, et que, de ce nombre, 284 étaient pour la chaîne généraliste, et 16 étaient pour Prise 2 et Mystère, pris ensemble.
830 Où se trouve LCN? Est‑ce que ça fait partie de la chaîne généraliste ou c'est seulement TVA la chaîne généraliste?
831 M. TRÉPANIER : Il s'agit d'une question très précise sur une de nos chaînes, et, malheureusement, je n'ai pas la réponse ‑‑ ça commence bien ‑‑ mais je peux certainement la fournir après l'audience.
832 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Oui, il n'y a aucun problème.
833 À ce moment‑là, si, effectivement, les 300 plaintes, ça inclut TVA et LCN, si c'était possible de les ventiler, ça serait utile, compte tenu que la programmation de LCN est principalement en direct, si pas totalement. Je ne l'écoute pas nécessairement au milieu de la nuit, mais, en tout cas, vous le savez mieux que moi.
834 Sur le total des 300 plaintes, en quatre ans et demi ‑‑ j'ai fait le calcul, s'il vous plaît, fiez‑vous à moi ‑‑ 61 pour cent des plaintes ont eu lieu en 2007 et 20 pour cent des plaintes dans la première moitié de 2007.
835 Est‑ce que l'augmentation du nombre de plaintes entre 2006 et 2007, ça correspond avec le moment de la mise en opération de votre système basé sur la reconnaissance vocale?
836 M. TRÉPANIER : Tout à fait! Vous avez l'explication. C'est une accentuation... il y avait eu des tests jusque là, mais c'est l'accentuation, en terme d'une grande quantité de programmation, de l'utilisation de la reconnaissance de la voix.
837 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : O.K. Et je suis consciente que notre question au niveau des données sur les plaintes portait jusqu'à, en fait, fin 2007. Vous avez pris la peine de nous fournir le début de 2008.
838 Quand vous chercherez la réponse à ma première question, est‑ce que vous pouvez aussi essayer de nous fournir des données pour la deuxième moitié de 2008 peut‑être jusqu'à présent, parce que moi, ce que je m'attends à voir, au fond, c'est une amélioration, parce qu'on la voit déjà là entre 2007 et le début de 2008. Alors, je veux m'assurer que ça continue bien dans ce sens‑là.
839 M. TRÉPANIER : Ce sera fait.
840 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Merci beaucoup.
841 Outre le nombre de plaintes de vos téléspectateurs, quel autre mécanisme de contrôle de qualité est‑ce que vous avez mis en place pour le sous‑titrage?
842 M. TRÉPANIER : Mais d'abord, il faut faire la distinction entre le sous‑titrage qui est fait en post‑production ‑‑ généralement, ce sont des émissions qui arrivent chez TVA pour diffusion avec le sous‑titrage ‑‑ et le sous‑titrage fait en direct.
843 Dans le sous‑titrage de post‑production qui arrive tout fait, je ne crois pas qu'on ait de contrôle de qualité, mais je ne crois pas qu'on ait non plus de plainte à cet égard‑là.
844 Dans le sous‑titrage fait en direct par reconnaissance de la voix, il s'agit d'un système qui est en amélioration constante dans ce sens que les appareils qui reconnaissent la voix doivent s'habituer, d'abord, aux personnes qui répètent ce qui est dit à l'écran, parce que chaque personne a un accent, chaque personne a une voix distincte et des sonorités, des phonèmes distincts, et il faut que l'appareil puisse s'habituer à cette personne‑là, d'abord.
845 Ensuite, il faut meubler le dictionnaire qui permet à l'appareil de reconnaître les mots et de les traduire en mots écrits, et lorsque l'on débute dans un nouveau domaine, comme, par exemple, lorsque TVA a lancé la chaîne Argent, il fallait meubler le dictionnaire de termes financiers et économiques. Alors, au départ, la qualité est moins bonne, et elle s'améliore constamment.
846 Maintenant, est‑ce que votre question est à l'effet qu'un autre groupe derrière contrôle la qualité? Non, il n'y a pas d'autre groupe qui contrôle la qualité. Il n'y a que les personnes qui font le sous‑titrage qui tentent de l'améliorer constamment.
847 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: O.K. J'insiste parce que dans l'ensemble des soumissions qui ont été faites, c'est un... disons un reproche qui revient vis à vis des radiodiffuseurs, de la part des gens qui se servent du sous‑titrage pour suivre une émission, à l'effet qu'ils ont parfois l'impression que sans les plaintes, il n'y a pas de vérification qui serait faite.
848 Alors, je me demande si, au niveau par exemple de la régie centrale, vous avez des moniteurs qui vous montrent comment le signal est, avant de se rendre dans la chaîne de distribution. Est‑ce qu'il y a certains moniteurs qui ne sont pas syntonisés pour, justement, montrer le sous‑titrage à mesure qu'il se rend dans la partie distribution, passé votre production?
849 M. TRÉPANIER: Il faudrait que je vérifie exactement comment ça fonctionne au centre de mise en ondes, mais ce que je crois qu'il se passe, c'est qu'il y a des moniteurs qui montrent le sous‑titrage et on s'assure de la présence du sous‑titrage. Mais quant à la qualité, compte tenu du travail que ces gens‑là ont à faire, je suis convaincu qu'il n'y a personne qui fait un contrôle de qualité lors de la mise en ondes.
850 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Et j'apprécie que vous fassiez la distinction que vous venez de faire entre, justement, la présence du sous‑titrage et la qualité du contenu.
851 Est‑ce que cette question‑là de surveillance de la présence du sous‑titrage...? Est‑ce que je peux présumer que cette mesure de contrôle‑là, qui est aussi une mesure de contrôle de qualité, mais... disons, quantitative, en ce sens qu'on vérifie s'il est bien là...?
852 Est‑ce que c'est une mesure de surveillance qui existe sur toutes vos chaînes et qui existe aussi pour Sun TV à Toronto?
853 M. TRÉPANIER: Oui, tout à fait. Sur toutes les chaînes de TVA et de Sun TV.
854 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Au sujet de Sun TV, encore, toujours à la page 3 de votre soumission, vous mentionnez que suite à de l'information reçue quant à l'interruption du sous‑titrage au cours d'un programme, vous avez identifié le problème technique, vous l'avez corrigé et ensuite, vous aviez informé le téléspectateur des horaires de rediffusion avec sous‑titrage des programmes. Et c'est excellent.
855 Et ça soulève deux questions dans mon esprit. La première, c'est de l'information au sujet de la rediffusion quand il y a eu un manque pendant la diffusion originale. Est‑ce que vous transmettez cette information‑là seulement à ceux qui vous ont contacté ou est‑ce que c'est publicisé un petit peu plus, soit sur votre site Web ou par des autopublicités dans le cadre de votre programmation régulière?
856 M. TRÉPANIER: Ce n'est pas publicisé autrement que: on recontacte la personne qui s'est plainte du problème et il arrive exceptionnellement que ça soit mis sur le site Web. Mais si la rediffusion a lieu à très court terme, à ce moment‑là, ce n'est pas sur le site Web.
857 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Ce n'est pas sur le site Web. Et pensez‑vous qu'il y aurait peut‑être un mérite à considérer publiciser un petit peu plus cette information‑là parce que traditionnellement, ce n'est pas tous les gens qui sont incommodés qui vont se plaindre nécessairement?
858 M. TRÉPANIER: Tout à fait. Et vous avez eu des échanges jusqu'ici concernant les guides électroniques et certainement que ce serait une bonne façon si...
859 Bien le sous‑titrage est déjà là, mais pour la vidéodescription, ce serait une bonne façon de le faire savoir, lorsqu'il y a eu un problème technique et qu'il y a eu un problème de diffusion. Alors, lors de la reprise, les personnes pourraient consulter le guide et voir que l'émission sera rediffusée avec sous‑titrage et/ou vidéodescription.
860 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: La deuxième question que je me pose c'est: Comment vous définissez une plainte?
861 Et là, je m'excuse, le préambule va être un petit peu long parce que j'ai ressorti plusieurs éléments de vos soumissions et je vous fais la synthèse ici. Et ce n'est pas anodin comme concept, alors je veux prendre le temps.
862 Dans vos commentaires au sujet de Sun TV, vous mentionnez que vous n'avez reçu aucune plainte formelle de 2004 à 2007, mais clairement, vous faites état d'un cas où quelqu'un s'est plaint et a obtenu satisfaction parce que le problème a été corrigé. Et c'est clair que dans ce cas‑là, étant donné que la personne a été recontactée, vous aviez ses coordonnées, vous aviez son nom.
863 Alors, juste avec cet élément‑là, moi, je me demande: Si ça, ce n'est pas suffisant pour être une plainte formelle, qu'est‑ce que ça prend?
864 Et, ailleurs dans votre soumission, au sujet de TVA, à la page 9 (toujours votre soumission du mois de juillet), vous dites que vous répondez systématiquement par courriel aux plaintes reçues. Alors là, moi, je me demande s'il y a seulement les plaintes par courriel qui sont des plaintes formelles et j'aimerais que vous éclaircissiez tout ça pour le bénéfice de tout le monde ici, s'il vous plaît.
865 M. TRÉPANIER: Bien, d'abord, je vous rassure que ce n'est pas seulement les plaintes écrites reçues par courriel qu'on appelle des plaintes, mais je suis obligé d'avouer avec vous que le mot plainte n'a pas la même signification pour tous et c'est peut‑être différent à TVA, à Sun TV, à Vidéotron.
866 De façon générale, une plainte, c'est un commentaire concernant quelque chose qui peut être amélioré, qui peut être changé, qui aurait dû être fait et bien fait et qui ne l'a pas été. Alors que quelqu'un qui appelle pour dire par exemple...
867 Et là, l'exemple qui me vient à l'esprit, ne s'applique pas en télévision.
868 ...mais dire que le tarif est trop élevé. On ne compte pas ça comme une plainte, on compte ça comme un commentaire parce que c'est le tarif pour tout le monde. Bon, les gens peuvent le trouver trop élevé, mais est‑ce que c'est véritablement une plainte ou un commentaire? Nous, on le calcule comme étant un commentaire.
869 Donc, lorsqu'on peut améliorer la chose, notamment pour la personne qui se plaint, c'est une plainte.
870 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Mais à ce moment‑là, est‑ce que vous tenez compte seulement des améliorations à court terme?
871 Parce que dans la question du sous‑titrage, présentement, maintenant ‑‑ surtout que vous avez changé de technologie et vous êtes en période de rodage, si je peux me permettre (vous n'êtes plus en période de test, mais vous êtes en période où vous formez les gens, encore, où comme vous le mentionniez, vous travaillez à meubler les différents dictionnaires pour les différentes chaînes et tout) est‑ce que tout commentaire concernant la qualité du sous‑titrage ou son absence, ça ne devrait pas être considéré comme une plainte?
872 M. TRÉPANIER: Vous me posez une question précise sur le sous‑titrage de TVA et sincèrement, il faudrait que j'essaie d'identifier avec eux l'endroit où ils tracent la ligne entre une plainte et un commentaire. Mais si vous voulez, c'est un renseignement que je pourrais fournir après l'audience.
873 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui, s'il vous plaît.
874 Donc, maintenant on a surtout parlé du passé. Là, on va parler plus de l'avenir. Vous êtes membre du groupe de travail de l'ACR sur le sous‑titrage? Oui, toujours?
875 M. TRÉPANIER: On l'a été, oui.
876 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Vous l'avez été. Vous ne l'êtes plus?
877 M. TRÉPANIER: C'est bien ça, depuis notre démission de l'ACR.
878 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Et, à ce moment‑là, est‑ce que c'est pour ça que vous précisez dans votre présentation que vous allez mettre en place...
879 Attendez, je retrouve la page... Vous voulez mettre en place un groupe de consultation avec les groupes représentant les personnes handicapées et que vous seriez prêt, même, à déposer votre plan d'action auprès du Conseil à ce sujet‑là.
880 M. TRÉPANIER: Non, il n'y a pas de lien entre les deux.
881 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Non?
882 M. TRÉPANIER: Je crois qu'à l'heure actuelle, on est encore en train de discuter avec l'ACR de comment les arrangements vont être faits.
883 Je suis convaincu que si des comités de travail nous demandent de collaborer, nous allons le faire avec plaisir.
884 Le commentaire que nous avons fait est un commentaire d'ordre général qui couvre des questions peut‑être plus pointues dans le domaine des télécommunications où nous sommes prêts, effectivement, à collaborer spécifiquement avec des groupes de personnes handicapées du Québec et de collaborer aussi, évidemment, avec le reste de l'industrie dans le pays.
885 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Maintenant, vous savez, étant donné que vous étiez partie à ce groupe‑là, que l'ACR devra remettre prochainement le rapport de son groupe de travail et on s'attend à ce qu'il décrive dans ce rapport‑là une nouvelle norme pour le sous‑titrage, une norme qu'on voudra universelle.
886 Selon vous, est‑ce que le Conseil devrait exiger des radiodiffuseurs, une fois que la norme aura été établie, et que l'ensemble des intervenants se seront mis d'accord sur la norme, est‑ce qu'on devrait exiger par condition de licence que les radiodiffuseurs adhèrent à cette nouvelle norme‑là?
887 M. TRÉPANIER: Écoutez, à chaque fois que vous posez la question à un titulaire de licence: Est‑ce qu'il voudrait avoir une condition de licence supplémentaire, la réponse, je le sais que c'est toujours * Bien, on en a déjà beaucoup +. Mais il y a eu quand même, même si récemment, nous nous sommes retirés de l'ACR, il y a eu quand même collaboration de TVA avec L'ACR et je suis convaincu qu'il n'y aura pas de surprise majeure dans le rapport de l'ACR.
888 Et s'il y a des normes nationales qui sont établies en anglais et en français, je suis à peu près certain, sans les avoir lues, mais je suis à peu près certain que ce seront des normes acceptables pour TVA.
889 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: On a parlé un peu plus tôt des moyens qui sont présentement en place pour détecter la présence ou non du sous‑titrage et les moyens qui sont présentement aussi en place pour vous, pour corriger les erreurs au niveau de la production de sous‑titrage, surtout en direct, avec la technologie de reconnaissance vocale.
890 Dans son mémoire, le RQST a proposé qu'une mesure de la qualité du sous‑titrage soit établie en comptant le taux d'erreur dans le sous‑titrage. Et j'aimerais connaître votre opinion à ce sujet‑là à plusieurs niveaux.
891 Et il y a trois volets à cette question‑là, c'est: comment on définirait une erreur, comment on les identifierait et qu'est‑ce que ça impliquerait en termes de ressources pour mettre un tel système de surveillance en place?
892 M. TRÉPANIER: Donc, en premier lieu, ça serait difficile... C'est sûr que bon, le groupe (la ressource, maintenant au lieu du regroupement) essaie de mettre en place quelque chose qui se calcule et c'est toujours plus facile pour le régulateur aussi d'avoir des normes qui se calculent. Mais la qualité, c'est quelque chose de difficile à calculer.
893 Et dans le domaine de la reconnaissance de la voix, donc, pour les émissions en direct, la toute dernière chaîne lancée par TVA et qui s'appelle... sur le bricolage...
894 Le nom m'échappe à l'heure actuelle ‑‑ je ne l'ai pas écoutée suffisamment souvent.
895 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: * Les idées de ma maison +?
896 M. TRÉPANIER: * Les idées de ma maison +, vous avez raison.
897 ... va avoir un taux d'erreur immensément plus grand que les nouvelles à l'antenne principale de TVA ou à LCN parce qu'il s'agit d'un nouveau vocabulaire et ça va prendre un certain temps avant que les termes soient reconnus avec une certaine exactitude par les fameux dictionnaires de la reconnaissance vocale.
898 Alors, est‑ce qu'on devrait avoir une mesure de ce type‑là? Il me semble que ça peut être pratique, mais que le Conseil nous oblige de respecter certains niveaux, je pense que ça serait excessivement lourd et peut‑être non‑pratique.
899 Et là, j'ai certainement oublié la deuxième ou la troisième partie de votre question.
900 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Bien, en fait, vous avez répondu de façon intégrée, alors, ça doit être une qualité qui vous sert bien chez Quebecor Media d'arriver à tout synthétiser comme ça.
901 Vous m'avez en fait, même, tendu une perche pour ma prochaine question qui serait de savoir : Si on choisissait (présumons que le choix a été fait) d'établir qu'un taux d'erreur cible devrait être atteint (évidemment, un taux d'erreur qu'on veut bas) la question qu'on se demanderait c'est si on devrait avoir des taux différents selon les technologies qui sont employées par le diffuseur.
902 Et je crois que ce que j'ai entendu, moi, dans votre réponse, c'était que compte tenu d'une technologie qui est utilisée, il peut avoir, dans le cas du développement d'un nouveau service, une période d'adaptation qui soit nécessaire aussi.
903 M. TRÉPANIER: Oui. Et là, jusqu'ici, bien, c'était... Ma réponse était dans le sens du sous‑titrage en direct. C'est autre dans le sous‑titrage en post‑production.
904 Maintenant, j'ai entendu ce matin que * erreur +...
905 Puis on peut parler de fautes d'orthographe ‑‑ et j'imagine que ça, ça se contrôle jusqu'à un certain point.
906 ...les erreurs de compréhension peuvent être plus difficiles à détecter et je me demande dans ce cas‑là comment on pourrait... J'imagine que ça prendrait un débat sur chaque cas. Est‑ce que le sous‑titrage a été fait de façon tout à fait consciente du sujet dont on parlait? Et certains sujets peuvent être assez complexes. Alors, c'est...
907 Même la définition d'erreur ne m'apparaît pas une chose facile.
908 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: C'est en 2007 que vous avez mis en opération votre système de sous‑titrage basé sur la reconnaissance vocale. Auparavant, vous utilisiez donc la technologie par sténographie?
909 M. TRÉPANIER: Probablement, mais savez vous, je ne sais pas.
910 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Non, à ce moment‑là... Je voulais profiter de votre expérience, de votre connaissance des deux technologies pour avoir des commentaires comparatifs, mais...
911 M. TRÉPANIER: Bien, la comparaison... C'est sûr que la reconnaissance de la voix est de beaucoup supérieure parce que la sténographie est un domaine tout à fait spécialisé. Il y a très peu de francophones qui la font et c'est de moins en moins utilisé dans les cours.
912 Donc, de moins en moins d'expertise existe et c'est la raison pour laquelle TVA a choisi de s'associer au CRIM, qui est un organisme montréalais de développement des technologies pour créer un logiciel de reconnaissance vocale puisque la sténographie allait disparaître. Maintenant, est‑ce que TVA l'a utilisé, la sténographie, il y a quelques années? Je ne sais pas.
913 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Dans les conditions de licence présentement établies par le Conseil, la majorité des licences prévoit un sous‑titrage qui va jusqu'à 100 pour cent des programmes et si ce n'est pas prévu actuellement, c'est prévu quand même à assez brève échéance.
914 Maintenant, lorsqu'on dit 100 pour cent, on fait tous un abus de langage parce qu'il s'agit bien de 100 pour cent de la journée de radiodiffusion et qu'une journée de radiodiffusion, elle a moins de 24 heures.
915 Et peut‑être que vous ne pourrez pas me donner la réponse tout de suite, mais... et peut‑être que vous pourrez me donner l'estimation un peu plus tard, mais est‑ce qu'on peut estimer ce que ça représenterait en terme d'incrément aux ressources présentement dédiées au sous‑titrage pour arriver à aller chercher vraiment le 100 pour cent de tout ce qui est diffusé comme étant sous‑titré.
916 M. TRÉPANIER: Vous avez raison, là. Je n'ai pas fait ce calcul‑là.
917 Je pourrais peut‑être, après l'audience, vous fournir les renseignements, mais ce que je peux vous dire, c'est qu'à l'heure actuelle, il y a une trentaine de personnes à TVA qui travaillent pour le sous‑titrage en particulier et que nous sommes à un niveau environ de 80 pour cent et que pour aller chercher un autre 10 pour cent, peut‑être que ce n'est pas une grande différence dans les ressources, mais pour aller chercher le dernier 10 pour cent, ça pourrait être très matériel, au niveau des ressources financières et humaines.
918 Il faut bien savoir que d'avoir une exigence à 100 pour cent créé une pression et en même temps nous laisse un peu perplexe, parce qu'il arrivera toujours des erreurs. Il arrivera toujours des émissions qui seront livrées et pas personne au moment de la diffusion trouve le module, le fichier sur le sous‑titrage, peut‑être parce qu'il ne nous a pas été envoyé, peut‑être parce qu'il a été effacé par erreur, et cetera.
919 Et même les machines, physiquement, peuvent se briser et le 100 pour cent, à mon avis, est une exigence qui est pratiquement impossible à atteindre.
920 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Il y a peut‑être une distinction à faire, aussi, dépendant du type de chaîne. Si on regarde par exemple une chaîne qui fait du direct continuellement, comme LCN, une chaîne comme TVA qui, peut‑être la nuit reprend des programmes qui ont déjà été diffusés auparavant ‑‑ il y a peut‑être une distinction à faire entre les deux, mais je vais attendre votre estimation.
921 Bon, c'est assez pour le sous‑titrage, à moins que vous vouliez qu'on continue.
922 On va passer à la vidéodescription. Ce sujet‑là, en fait, en contient deux. On en a parlé ce matin; il y a une distinction à faire entre la description du vidéo d'un programme et aussi la description audio d'un programme qui est par ailleurs... qui n'a pas de description de son vidéo.
923 Alors, la question de la description audio, c'est une question qui touche de très près les programmes de nouvelles, en fait, ou des programmes sportifs. Alors, j'aimerais savoir quelles mesures sont présentement en place dans l'ensemble de vos chaînes pour que les programmes diffusés contiennent les descriptions audio appropriées lorsque ça peut se faire?
924 M. TRÉPANIER: Je crois que c'est une question de culture d'entreprise. Les gens qui produisent, produisent souvent à la dernière minute. Ils sont fiers de leur production, mais là, on leur dit: Bien, on n'entend pas ce qui est à l'écran.
925 Alors, ça se fait de façon * cas par cas + et c'est certainement un des endroits où il y aurait moyen d'améliorer la culture de l'entreprise.
926 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Avec par exemple des séances de formation ou...?
927 M. TRÉPANIER: Exactement. Ça revient toujours à l'éducation et à la formation de tous ceux qui travaillent dans l'industrie, y compris la production indépendante puisque souvent, ce sont des productions ou des modules à l'intérieur, ça peut être même dans un bulletin de nouvelles, des modules qui sont faits à l'extérieur de l'entreprise.
928 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Le Regroupement des aveugles et amblyopes du Québec a proposé que le Conseil exige des radiodiffuseurs une augmentation d'heures de programmation décrit à 14 heures par semaine dès la première année du prochain renouvellement de licence avec une augmentation graduelle jusqu'à 28 heures par semaine à l'année sept du même renouvellement.
929 Alors, ma question, la question suivante est hypothétique (et je me rappelle ce que vous m'avez dit plutôt au sujet des conditions de licence). Présumons que le concept adopte hypothétiquement cette proposition‑là.
930 On va discuter de l'impact financier, mais avant ça, j'aimerais connaître votre opinion sur la manière dont une telle exigence pourrait et devrait être mise en ouvre.
931 Et si vous voulez, je peux peut‑être vous souffler un petit peu les réponses ou les éléments de discussion. D'abord, j'aimerais savoir, selon vous, quel type de programmation se prêterait bien à une augmentation de description du vidéo?
932 M. TRÉPANIER: Bien, je pense que quant au type de programmation, on a déjà eu des... depuis ce matin, des indications. Et il y a des genres de programmes, d'émissions qui s'imagent bien et il n'y a pas nécessairement... c'est‑à‑dire, elles sont bien décrites et il n'y a pas nécessairement à ajouter de la vidéo description.
933 Mais je vous dirais que quant à la façon dont le Conseil devrait s'assurer qu'il y aura une croissance jusqu'à un certain nombre d'heures par semaine, je pense qu'il faut prendre le temps d'avoir cette discussion‑là au moment du renouvellement de licence et fort heureusement, les renouvellements de licences de stations de télévision s'en viennent rapidement.
934 Et je vous dis pourquoi je fais cette affirmation‑là. C'est que le principal problème, à la vidéodescription est celui du délai. Par exemple, pour une émission acquise, il faut que la vidéodescription soit faite ‑‑ de ce qu'on m'explique ‑‑ soit faite après le sous‑titrage.
935 Et tout ça demande jusqu'à trois semaines. Pourtant, plusieurs des émissions acquises sont livrées dans un délai beaucoup plus court que trois semaines. Alors, quel genre d'émissions vous me demandez? Il faudra voir genre par genre et il faudra voir si les émissions sont acquises, si les émissions sont produites à l'interne.
936 Et même produite à l'interne, les émissions sont sous‑titrées et la vidéo description est faite par une entreprise de Quebecor Media qui s'appelle l'ACET. Mais il faut prendre la production et l'envoyer chez l'ACET faire faire ces travaux‑là et retourner. Alors, il y a une question de délai à la mise en ondes. Je pense que ça sera l'obstacle principal à la vidéodescription.
937 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Et pensez‑vous qu'en augmentant la demande ça pourrait avoir comme effet d'augmenter l'offre de la part de ceux qui le font, et de réduire ce délai‑là de trois semaines dont vous me parlez?
938 M. TRÉPANIER: J'imagine qu'on peut réduire cet écart‑là. C'est l'écart actuel. On peut certainement le réduire, mais comme il s'agit de personnes qui doivent lire du texte et le mettre... l'apposer sur la trame sonore d'une production, il y a un temps requis, il y a un certain nombre de personnes qui font ce travail‑là, une disponibilité des studios, et cetera.
939 Donc, on peut comprimer certainement, mais est‑ce qu'on peut comprimer de 100 pour cent? Je serais surpris.
940 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Toujours en présumant qu'il y aurait une exigence comparable, pensez‑vous que l'exigence en terme de vidéodescription devrait s'appliquer uniformément à tous les types de services de programmation, que ce soit les diffuseurs hertziens, des services spécialisés, du vidéo sur demande, et cetera?
941 M. TRÉPANIER: La difficulté demeure sensiblement la même, mais l'économie de chaque chaîne n'est pas la même. Il est certain que pour une chaîne de catégorie * B + (maintenant), anciennement de catégorie 2... n'a pas les mêmes budgets que la chaîne principale de TVA et pourtant, le coût de la vidéodescription demeure quand même aux environs de 1 750 $ de l'heure.
942 Alors, je pense que les exigences, non, ne devraient pas être les mêmes en termes d'heures.
943 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Dans le même ordre d'idées, pensez‑vous qu'elles devraient être les mêmes en ce qui concerne les marchés français et anglais (ou je devrais dire francophone et anglophone).
944 M. TRÉPANIER: Je crois que de faire la vidéodescription pour une émission en français ou faire la vidéodescription pour une émission en anglais, les efforts, les ressources sont probablement les mêmes.
945 Par contre, dans le marché de langue française, est‑ce que les émissions acquises auront la vidéodescription autant que dans le marché de langue anglaise? Je ne crois pas.
946 Alors, il faudrait aussi faire cette étude pour voir jusqu'à quel point il serait réaliste d'accroître le nombre d'heures par semaine en radiodiffusion de langue française, mais je prendrais le pari, à ce moment‑ci, que si on veut être aussi réaliste en français et en anglais que le nombre d'heures en français serait réduit par rapport à celui dans la radiodiffusion de langue anglaise.
947 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Quand vous parlez d'émissions acquises, est‑ce que vous parlez d'émissions étrangères?
948 M. TRÉPANIER: Oui. Je parle d'émissions étrangères, parce que j'imagine qu'une émission canadienne déjà produite peut être vidéodécrite, si vous me permettez l'expression...
949 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui.
950 M. TRÉPANIER: ...tout autant qu'une en anglais. Par contre, pour les émissions canadiennes qui sont produite depuis longtemps, il est, encore là, possible que ces émissions‑là aient été décrites en anglais, mais que le travail soit à faire, en français.
951 Donc, de façon générale, mais surtout pour les émissions étrangères, il y aura une problématique qui se présentera en français.
952 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Et maintenant, je reviens à la proposition du Regroupement des aveugles et amblyopes du Québec qui est d'augmenter l'exigence vis‑à‑vis du matériel vidéo décrit de 14 heures par semaines à la première année du renouvellement et graduellement jusqu'à 28 heures la septième année. Est‑ce que vous pourrez nous fournir une estimation de ce qu'une telle exigence représente en termes de coût pour vos services?
953 M. TRÉPANIER: On va vous fournir ça au moment où vous allez déterminer, après l'audience publique.
954 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Merci.
955 Maintenant, je ne sais pas si vous êtes en mesure de me répondre sur des questions un petit peu plus tatillonnes, en ce qui concerne, justement, les coûts. Parce que dans votre soumission du 10 juillet, vous parlez d'un coût de 50 000 $ pour l'équipement de mise en ondes à Montréal et à Québec pour pouvoir diffuser le vidéodescription.
956 C'est un coût d'immobilisation, ça, pour l'achat d'équipement ou c'est un coût qui est récurrent?
957 M. TRÉPANIER: C'est un coût d'immobilisation.
958 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: C'est un coût d'immobilisation. Et cet investissement‑là a déjà été fait?
959 M. TRÉPANIER: À Montréal et à Québec, oui.
960 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: À Montréal et à Québec. Et la durée de vie de l'équipement c'est quoi? Une vingtaine d'année?
961 M. TRÉPANIER: Je ne pourrais pas vous dire. Il faudrait que je vérifie aussi. Je le dis parce que ça dépend toujours si c'est un équipement plus ou moins informatisé.
962 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui, oui.
963 Oui, les équipements informatiques n'ont pas une très très longue durée de vie.
964 Maintenant, le coût de la distribution du signal, vous mentionnez 30 000 $ par an. Alors là, ça, c'est clair que c'est un coût récurrent.
965 Et vous indiquez que c'est le coût pour l'augmentation de bande passante pour l'ajout de canaux audio chez Vidéotron et Bell ExpressVu. Alors là, j'ai besoin d'explications supplémentaires.
966 Ma première question c'est: Qui est‑ce qui défraie ce coût‑là supplémentaire? Est‑ce que c'est le service de programmation (par exemple TVA) ou est‑ce que c'est le service de distribution Vidéotron et Bell ExpressVu?
967 M. TRÉPANIER: Pourriez‑vous me préciser, s'il vous plaît à quel endroit vous avez ces coûts‑là?
968 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui... Oui. À la page 10.
‑‑‑ Pause
969 M. TRÉPANIER: La réponse RC?
970 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui, oui. On parle de distribution du signal, 30 000 $ par année et on dit:
* Les coûts liés à la distribution correspondent à l'augmentation de la bande passante pour l'ajout des canaux audio chez Vidéotron ou Bell ExpressVu + (Tel que lu)
971 M. TRÉPANIER: Oui. Et on parle... Donc ici on parle de distribution, maintenant. On parle de Vidéotron?
972 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui. Mais c'est ça, je veux savoir... Donc, le coût de 30 000 $ par année, c'est le coût qui est supporté par Vidéotron?
973 M. TRÉPANIER: Effectivement.
974 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: O.K.
‑‑‑ Pause
975 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Donc, quand TVA, qui est obligatoirement distribué dans les marchés anglophones, donc par de nombreux distributeurs...
976 Quand TVA retransmet un deuxième canal audio pour la description du vidéo, les distributeurs ne vous facturent pas un supplément?
977 M. TRÉPANIER: Non. Les distributeurs ne facturent pas un supplément, mais j'aimerais faire une correction, ici.
978 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui.
979 M. TRÉPANIER: Il s'agit du coût de transport effectué par TVA.
980 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: À la tête de ligne de Vidéotron ou de Bell ExpressVu?
981 M. TRÉPANIER: Non. Il s'agit du coût de transport de la vidéodescription de TVA au réseau TVA, à toutes ses stations.
982 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Ah! Donc, de TVA, la tête de réseau, aux stations du réseau?
983 M. TRÉPANIER: Exactement.
984 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Parfait. Merci beaucoup.
985 Je présume que la technologie que vous utilisez avec vos émetteurs en ondes, autant à Montréal qu'à Québec, c'est d'insérer ce signal audio‑là sur le deuxième canal, le canal secondaire audio avec votre signal vidéo?
986 M. TRÉPANIER: Oui.
987 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Pouvez‑vous m'indiquer ‑‑ et vous n'êtes pas obligé de répondre tout de suite parce que là, j'aimerais... Je vais vous le dire tout de suite, là, je veux une réponse en mégahertz ou en mégabits par seconde... parce que vous parlez justement de l'augmentation de la bande passante.
988 J'aimerais savoir exactement à quoi elle correspond, cette augmentation‑là, par rapport au signal qui n'a pas de vidéodescription.
989 M. TRÉPANIER: Je pourrais, avec une question peut‑être un petit peu plus précise vous trouver une réponse très précise...
990 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Ah!
991 M. TRÉPANIER: ...mais ce qu'on me dit (et qui peut peut‑être vous aider de façon générale) c'est qu'à l'heure actuelle, il y a à peu près 130 chaînes chez Vidéotron qui pourraient avoir de la vidéodescription et que si ces 130 chaînes‑là faisaient effectivement de la vidéodescription, Vidéotron aurait besoin de l'espace de 11 chaînes vidéo supplémentaires.
992 Chez Vidéotron, une chaîne, en fin de compte, ça fonctionne par... bien, par six mégahertz; il y a 11 chaînes dans six mégahertz.
993 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Donc, c'est de l'ordre d'un peu moins de 10 pour cent?
994 M. TRÉPANIER: Effectivement.
995 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Alors, si vous pouvez quand même m'avoir les chiffres détaillés...
996 M. TRÉPANIER: Alors, pourriez‑vous me répéter la question si...
997 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Oui. C'est de savoir quelle est exactement l'augmentation de la bande passante entre un signal qui a de la vidéodescription et un signal qui n'en a pas.
998 M. TRÉPANIER: Merci.
‑‑‑ Pause
999 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Je m'excuse. Vous venez de me tendre une perche pour parler de distribution, alors, j'hésite entre deux questions, mais je vais continuer avec les exigences potentielles du Conseil (hypothétiques, je devrais dire) en vidéodescription.
1000 Si on devait décider d'une exigence, pensez‑vous que ça serait préférable de le faire en terme d'heures absolues ou en terme de pourcentage de la programmation...ou ça vous est égal?
1001 M. TRÉPANIER: Je pense qu'il faut trouver... Vous me parlez de vidéodescription, ici?
1002 Je pense qu'il faut trouver une correspondance aussi avec les recettes de la chaînes et peut‑être avec le budget de programmation, aussi.
1003 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: O.K.
1004 M. TRÉPANIER: Parce que * heures absolues + ou * pourcentage + de... Disons, 168 heures de diffusion dans une semaine, pour nous, ça revient sensiblement au même, mais l'économie de chacune des chaînes n'est pas la même.
1005 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Et ça m'amène à ma prochaine question. On a estimé... et d'autres personnes aussi ont fait l'estimation à peu près la même que globalement, les exigences présentes de quatre heures par semaine, si elles étaient appliquées à tous les diffuseurs (en fait, les principaux groupes de propriétés en diffusion hertzienne) que ça représenterait environ un demi de un pour cent des dépenses totales de ces réseaux‑là.
1006 Alors, vous n'êtes pas obligé de me répondre tout de suite, mais ce que j'aimerais savoir, c'est: À votre avis, en ce qui concerne précisément TVA, à partir de quelle proportion, justement, est‑ce que les dépenses liées à la vidéodescription par rapport à l'ensemble des dépenses... à partir de quel niveau est‑ce que ça deviendrait un fardeau difficile à contrôler... ou à supporter, je devrais dire?
1007 M. TRÉPANIER: Vous avez raison, je ne vais pas vous répondre aujourd'hui parce que je vais me faire gronder par les financiers de TVA, mais on va trouver une réponse à la question.
1008 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: En intervenant, monsieur Eddy a proposé de créer un fonds d'accès pour la description vidéo en facturant vingt sous par mois aux abonnés des entreprises de distribution.
1009 Et là, quand vous me répondrez, faites attention de me dire si vous me répondez pour TVA ou pour Vidéotron parce que vous êtes des deux côtés de la clôture, comme ça.
1010 Selon vous, quel serait l'impact de ce transfert de coûts à l'ensemble des abonnés de Vidéotron et cet impact‑là, qu'est‑ce que ça aurait de positif pour, justement, l'accès à la vidéodescription?
1011 M. TRÉPANIER: Je veux bien comprendre, ici. Vous me parlez d'un fonds national qui servirait à la vidéodescription et la contribution permettant de financer ce fond national‑là viendrait des distributeurs?
1012 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Viendrait, en fait en facturant... serait fait en facturant 20 sous par mois aux abonnés des distributeurs. Alors vous, comment vous réagissez à cette proposition‑là, qui est la proposition d'un des intervenants à l'instance?
1013 M. TRÉPANIER: D'abord, les fonds nationaux, ce n'est pas la chose qui attire énormément Quebecor Media. Je pense qu'on a déjà une réputation à cet effet‑là.
1014 Maintenant, si chaque entreprise de distribution au pays doit ajouter une contribution aux services aux personnes handicapées et que cette contribution‑là est reconnaissable par ceux qui paient les mensualités, au départ, on va certainement vous dire que plus ça coûte cher, moins il y a de clients, parce que les clients ne peuvent plus payer.
1015 Mais cela dit, c'est effectivement une façon de faire qui pourrait être équitable si tous les distributeurs avaient le même fardeau.
1016 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Et si je comprends bien, au niveau de l'administration et de la distribution des montants du fonds, vous avez fait le commentaire que pour Quebecor Media, les fonds nationaux, ce n'était pas nécessairement sa préférence?
1017 M. TRÉPANIER: Oui. C'est qu'on a souvent tendance à un problème... à arriver avec des solutions qui sont de créer des organismes, des comités, des groupes, et dans les faits, souvent, ces initiatives nobles et issues de la bonne volonté dégénèrent en bureaucratie coûteuse. Et c'est la raison pour laquelle nous nous méfions beaucoup de ce genre de solution.
1018 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: Est‑ce que vous auriez autre chose à proposer à ce stade‑ci ou vous attendriez de savoir ce qui se passe un peu plus tard?
1019 M. TRÉPANIER: De façon générale, ce que nous proposons, c'est de profiter d'abord de l'expérience que nous vivons aujourd'hui et que nous allons vivre dans les prochains jours avec le Conseil et les groupes d'intérêt et le reste de l'industrie.
1020 Ensuite, c'est d'initier des consultations afin de déterminer les besoins de façon le plus précis possible et par la suite, de déterminer avec l'industrie d'abord et ensuite avec le Conseil, quels sont les niveaux de services qui, dans une société industrialisée comme le Canada, devraient être offerts.
1021 Et à partir de là, * comment allons‑nous financer tout ça? + Je pense que ça pourrait être une autre discussion. Mais de dire, à ce moment‑ci : Oui, créons un fond national puis allons de l'avant, il me semble que c'est véritablement prématuré.
1022 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE: C'est noté.
1023 Maintenant, pour parler de distribution et plus précisément de l'équipement fourni par Vidéotron à ses clients ‑‑ mon préambule est un peu long, je vais essayer de la couper, mais quand même, soyez indulgent...
1024 Au travers des mémoires qui ont été soumis par des personnes handicapées ou des regroupements les représentant, il y a un thème commun qui est très, très évident. C'est celui de la difficulté d'utilisation de l'équipement fourni par le distributeur pour arriver à accéder soit aux sous‑titres, soit à la vidéodescription qui, par ailleurs sont existant.
1025 Pour l'instant, on va laisser de côté la question du guide de programmes.
1026 J'ai aussi pris note de votre commentaire dans votre soumission du 10 juillet à la page 7, au sujet, justement, de vos terminaux et de vos fournisseurs, plus particulièrement en ce qui a trait à l'accès à la vidéodescription, parce que là, c'est plus problématique que pour le sous‑titrage. Je vous cite. Vous dites :
* La normalisation du processus complet de la source au client final reste toutefois un enjeu. + (Tel que lu)
1027 En même temps, quand j'examine une télécommande de Vidéotron (si je l'ai bien examinée ‑‑ vous me corrigerez si je me trompe), il y a un bouton dédié à la vidéo sur demande et la question de la commande unique pour la description vidéo, à ce moment‑là, se pose.
1028 Puis finalement, je présume que Vidéotron est un client exigeant pour ses fournisseurs. En tout cas, moi, si je vous avais comme client et que j'étais fournisseur, je répondrais vite au téléphone quand vous appelez.
1029 Alors, avec tout ça en tête, pouvez‑vous m'expliquer (et là, c'est vraiment une question ouverte)... pouvez‑vous m'expliquer le * qui +, le * quoi +, le * combien + et le * combien du pourquoi + au sujet de la disponibilité d'équipement de télécommande et de terminal qui offrirait un design vraiment adapté aux personnes qui ont une incapacité visuelle ou motrice, et pour qui on pourrait trouver un meilleur moyen pour arriver à accéder au sous‑titrage et à la vidéodescription.
1030 M. TRÉPANIER: C'est une question à 360 degrés, là. Je vais débuter en disant que Vidéotron est peut‑être un client important de Scientific Atlanta, qui est le fournisseur des terminaux numériques et des contrôles à distance, mais toute proportion gardée, il y a beaucoup de clients beaucoup plus importants que Vidéotron pour Scientific Atlanta. C'est la première chose.
1031 La deuxième chose (et jusqu'à un certain point, c'est une bonne nouvelle), c'est qu'on a entendu tout à l'heure, à l'effet qu'il y aurait une loi américaine qui serait supposément votée prochainement.
1032 Notre fournisseur a de la difficulté à développer des programmes informatiques qui ne serviraient que pour le Canada ou que pour le Québec, alors qu'aux États‑Unis, il n'y a pas de demande à l'heure actuelle pour ce produit‑là. En tout cas, il n'y en a pas eu véritablement jusqu'ici.
1033 Ensuite, j'imagine, je terminerais en vous disant qu'il y a différents... Quand on parle de vidéo numérique, on parle de réseaux qui s'apparentent à des réseaux informatiques.
1034 Il y a différents niveaux de logiciels dans un réseau numérique (et ici, je parle de logiciels d'exploitation). Certains de ces niveaux‑là ne sont pas accessibles pour Vidéotron; certains (le niveau très supérieur, moins profond si on veut) le sont. Nous avons eu des discussions avec Scientific Atlanta pour faire une partie du travail, mais jusqu'ici, on n'a pas réussi à s'entendre sur l'accès aux parties logicielles qui nous permettraient de faire les changements.
1035 Alors, à l'heure actuelle, il faut faire ce que l'on décrit ici, à la page 7, pour avoir accès à la vidéodescription. Et c'est aussi vrai qu'à chaque fois qu'on change de canal, il faut recommencer la manipulation de la télécommande pour avoir la vidéodescription. Et c'est certainement frustrant et désagréable.
1036 On n'a pas trouvé de nouvelle solution et on espère pouvoir en trouver dans la mesure où le manufacturier acceptera d'investir dans ce besoin.
1037 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Et est‑ce que le manufacturier en question vous a... ou avez‑vous déjà fait avec ce manufacturier‑là une demande de cotation pour qu'il les fasse les modifications pour les équipements que vous achetez par la suite?
1038 M. TRÉPANIER: Je ne crois pas, non, qu'on ait fait une demande de cotation à ce propos‑là.
1039 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : En tout cas, ça m'encourage quand même de voir qu'il y a des mesures qui ont déjà été entreprises et je vous encourage à insister auprès de votre fournisseur.
1040 Maintenant, vous mentionnez que, étant donné que vous avez une exemption, de ne pas transmettre ‑‑ en fait, distribuer, je devrais plutôt utiliser ce mot‑là ‑‑ ne pas distribuer la vidéo description sur les canaux analogiques de Vidéotron, que vous fournissez gratuitement un terminal numérique à vos abonnés.
1041 Jusqu'à quel point est‑ce que vous faites la publicité de cette possibilité‑là auprès de vos clients actuels et aussi auprès de vos clients potentiels, les gens qui appellent chez vous, là, pour un nouvel abonnement?
1042 M. TRÉPANIER: Trop peu. Je pense que l'occasion est excellente ici puisque les groupes intéressés sont présents pour faire cette promotion‑là. Alors, ceux qui veulent bien m'entendre, je peux faire un peu de publicité et leur dire : oui, appelez Vidéotron, vous allez voir que les personnes préposées à répondre au téléphone ou à répondre au courriel savent qu'ils peuvent offrir les terminaux numériques. On appelle ça *faire une location gratuite+ et que, en même temps que ces communications‑là ont lieu, on offre la facture en braille et d'autres services pour personnes handicapées.
1043 Maintenant, si c'était mieux promu, et je me suis assuré que ça va l'être tout au moins par un communiqué dans les prochains jours, il est probable qu'il y ait plus de terminaux qui seraient ainsi loués aux personnes qui en ont besoin.
1044 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Et je présume aussi, là, que c'est disponible non seulement pour l'abonné lui‑même, mais si c'est quelqu'un de sa maisonnée qui a un handicap visuel, à ce moment‑là, ça serait considéré comme étant pour l'abonné aussi?
1045 M. TRÉPANIER: Je ne suis pas certain de bien comprendre votre question.
1046 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Par exemple, bon, un abonné, généralement, va souvent vivre en famille là, donc, par exemple, si c'est l'enfant de l'abonné ou le conjoint de l'abonné, ça serait considéré aussi valable comme demande?
1047 M. TRÉPANIER: Tout à fait, une personne à l'intérieur d'un foyer.
1048 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Présentement, votre guide de programmation est entièrement visuel?
1049 M. TRÉPANIER: Oui.
1050 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Est‑ce que vous avez envisagé, là, à l'avenir, d'une part... bien de le rendre... pas d'une part, mais tout simplement de le rendre, ce guide, auditif ou plus accessible pour les gens qui ont des incapacités visuelles?
1051 M. TRÉPANIER: Grâce à ce processus public, c'est une question que j'ai soulevée. Malheureusement, la réponse est qu'un véritable guide qui serait sonore; c'est‑à‑dire lorsqu'on change de canal, on entend : *Vous êtes maintenant au canal 78 et vous écoutez la chaîne X, Y, Z+. C'est une chose qu'on m'a dit n'existe pas.
1052 Par contre, s'il y avait des développements dans ce sens‑là, certainement qu'on serait intéressé, mais hormis un canal spécialisé pour indiquer que certaines émissions sont décrites en vidéo; c'est‑à‑dire vidéo décrites, hormis ce genre d'approche‑là, un véritable guide où le vocal est intégré parfaitement à l'image, à ce que l'on peut lire, on n'a pas connaissance de l'existence d'une telle chose.
1053 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Au niveau de la disponibilité, bon, on comprend qu'au niveau analogique, là, ce signal‑là n'est pas disponible. Donc, l'offre des terminaux numériques gratuitement à vos abonnés qui ont un handicap visuel et, à ce moment‑là, on doit s'attendre à ce que ça soit disponible dans la distribution numérique.
1054 Dans votre soumission, vous faites état d'une difficulté au niveau du passage, en ce sens que vous dites que les services de programmation que vous distribuez sur Vidéotron devraient vous informer lorsqu'il y a effectivement un canal utilisé pour ça puisque votre équipement de tête de ligne, par défaut, ne fait pas passer ce deuxième canal secondaire là.
1055 Bon, je comprends qu'il y a une question d'efficacité de gestion de la bande passante sur le réseau de Vidéotron, mais en même temps, l'obligation de ne pas altérer le signal de programmation qui vous est fourni ait cette obligation‑là, elle existe en tout temps.
1056 Alors, je me demande pourquoi vous ne prenez pas le problème à l'inverse et quoique, là, je constate dans votre soumission que vous avez déjà commencé à le faire, mais je veux comprendre, là, si vous allez assez loin parce que je pense qu'à partir du moment où vous altérez le signal du Service de programmation, pour des fins de gestion de votre équipement, est‑ce que ça ne serait pas plutôt à Vidéotron à prendre les devants avec les Services de programmation pour savoir quand est‑ce qu'ils peuvent... que Vidéotron peut ou ne peut pas altérer le signal, sinon le signal de vidéo description serait enlevé.
1057 Et comme je vous dis, je constate, là, que vous avez mentionné qu'à l'automne 2008 vous étiez pour initier des contacts avec toutes les chaînes qui sont distribuées sur Vidéotron, justement pour instaurer un système, un canal de communication sur ce sujet‑là spécifique.
1058 Alors, est‑ce que cette ‑‑ c'est un peu long comme préambule ‑‑ mais est‑ce que cette communication‑là a déjà eu lieu? Pouvez‑vous faire état de l'avancement des discussions?
1059 Et ce que j'aimerais aussi savoir, c'est : est‑ce que ça minimise quand même l'impact, là, sur les Services de programmation où vous distribuez, la façon dont le canal de communications a été mis en place?
1060 M. TRÉPANIER: D'abord, pour ce qui est de la question de savoir pourquoi tous les canaux ne sont pas ouverts, ce qui permettrait de ne pas avoir à gérer cette communication‑là entre le distributeur et les chaînes, la réponse c'est la bande passante.
1061 Les entreprises de câblodistribution, et je pense que c'est comme ça chez tous les distributeurs, mais particulièrement chez les entreprises de câblodistribution, la gestion de la bande passante est une question éminemment complexe et va le demeurer jusqu'au jour où il y aura beaucoup de services distribués en mode analogique. À ce moment‑là, il n'y aura plus d'espace.
1062 À l'heure actuelle, il y a peu d'espace et c'est très difficile à gérer. Et si on ouvre tous les canaux à vide, ça veut dire qu'on aura besoin de 11 espaces de chaînes, l'équivalent de 11 chaînes numériques.
1063 Donc, ça, c'est la question que vous... c'est la réponse sur laquelle ce n'est pas ouvert chez toutes les chaînes.
1064 Maintenant, pour ce qui est des communications avec les chaînes, afin de pouvoir identifier quelles sont celles qui ont, effectivement, la vidéo description, nous avons envoyé 60 lettres à diverses entreprises qui, ensemble, nous donnent accès à 200 chaînes vidéo et nous avons eu 32 pour cent de réponses.
1065 Nous allons bientôt relancer les entreprises qui n'ont pas répondu, mais parmi celles qui ont répondu, il n'y avait pas de nouvelle chaîne qui offrait de la vidéo description.
1066 Nous allons quand même poursuivre l'effort. Ce que nous déplorons, toutefois, c'est qu'il n'y a pas un endroit central au pays qui serait, il me semble, une banque de données peu complexe où les distributeurs pourraient voir quelle chaîne qui, cette semaine, a commencé à faire de la vidéo description et quelle autre commencera la semaine prochaine.
1067 Ça nous permettrait, comme distributeurs, d'être véritablement transparents.
1068 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Je vais sauter au service de téléphonie et je reviendrai peut‑être sur le passage à l'autre définition parce qu'il me reste une ou deux questions, mais je ne veux pas que votre collègue, monsieur Béland, s'endorme sur nos discussions de radiodiffusion, sans parler de mes collègues à moi.
1069 Dans certaines juridictions étrangères, et là je vous parle de téléphonie sans fil, de téléphonie mobile, dans certaines juridictions étrangères, c'est possible d'accueillir des appareils de téléphonie mobile qui offrent des fonctionnalités pour adapter pour des personnes qui ont des déficiences, que ce soit auditives ou visuelles.
1070 Jusqu'à quel point est‑ce que vous offrez dans votre offre de services, là, de tels appareils pour vos clients? Et sinon, si vous n'en offrez pas, qu'est‑ce qui empêche, là, l'introduction de ces appareils‑là?
1071 M. BÉLAND : Bien, il faut dire, d'abord, que Vidéotron, pour le moment, n'est pas un grand joueur dans le sans fil au Canada. On espère que ça va changer bientôt, mais ce n'est pas le cas pour le moment.
1072 Je ne crois pas qu'il y a une offre spécifique chez Vidéotron de tels appareils présentement. Et la recherche nécessaire pour trouver une liste de tels appareils et d'évaluer leur fonctionnalité, d'évaluer leurs qualités, on trouve que ce n'est pas nécessairement quelque chose qui serait efficace à faire compagnie par compagnie, surtout encore une fois pour une compagnie dont le rôle est assez marginal pour le moment.
1073 Donc, l'idée a été mentionnée plus tôt de l'établissement, d'une façon ou d'une autre, d'un institut ou d'une organisation qui pourrait avoir le mandat de faire la recherche.
1074 On sait que ce sont les fournisseurs d'appareils sont des fournisseurs à l'échelle planétaire, donc vraiment faire les recherches, trouver les listes d'appareils qui sont... qui ont des éléments de design et qui sont plus accessibles et Vidéotron en tant que fournisseur actuel, mais fournisseur qui est appelé à croître, on serait intéressé à avoir ce genre de ressource‑là pour connaître les appareils puis peut‑être même en inclure dans notre offre de services.
1075 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Parce que vous avez mentionné au début de la réponse que, étant donné que Vidéotron n'est pas encore un gros joueur dans la téléphonie mobile, que c'est difficile pour vous, là, de faire ce genre d'inventaire‑là, mais il demeure que Vidéotron est quand même partie d'une grande entreprise qu'est Quebecor Media.
1076 Alors si du point de vue de Vidéotron Téléphonie vous voyez des obstacles devant vous, je pense que vous appréciez à quel point ces obstacles‑là sont encore plus importants pour monsieur et madame tout le monde qui cherchent à trouver l'appareil de son choix.
1077 Mais ce que je retiens aussi de votre réponse, c'est que vous êtes disposé à participer à un effort collectif, là, pour arriver à débusquer tous les appareils qui sont mieux adaptés pour les personnes qui ont des handicaps.
1078 M. D. BÉLAND : Mais il y a une question franchement d'efficacité aussi. C'est de, entre une situation où chaque compagnie sans fil, et il y en a des petites au Canada aussi, pas juste les trois grandes compagnies sans fil, entre une situation où chaque compagnie sans fil va faire ses propres recherches chez tous les fournisseurs à l'échelle de la planète pour trouver les meilleurs appareils et une approche où il y a une organisation dont le mandat et la compétence est de faire ce travail‑là, il nous paraît qu'il y a quand même une efficacité rattachée à la deuxième option.
1079 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Et à ce moment‑là, justement dans un but d'efficacité, si un de vos clients, lors d'un voyage en Finlande ou aux États‑Unis ‑‑ je parle de la Finlande parce que je pense à Nokia ‑‑ ou aux États‑Unis, trouver un appareil qui répond à ses besoins et que cet appareil‑là, par ailleurs, sans qu'il fasse partie de votre offre, il soit compatible avec votre réseau mobile.
1080 Là, je ne parle pas de refaire votre réseau mobile, d'utiliser une autre technologie de transmission, là, il est compatible avec votre réseau mobile. Est‑ce que vous seriez disposé à accepter que ce client‑là connecte cet appareil‑là, acheté ailleurs, à votre réseau?
1081 M. D. BÉLAND : Je ne crois pas que la question est si facile que ça parce que, d'abord, Industries Canada a un rôle dans la certification d'appareils cellulaires et de radio fréquence, donc d'abord, première chose, ça ne serait pas notre choix à nous seuls.
1082 Deuxièmement, comme vous avez mentionné dans votre question, les services sans fil à travers le monde opèrent sur de nombreuses bandes de fréquences différentes, donc ce n'est... c'est rarement aussi facile que de trouver un appareil dans un autre pays et de présumer que cet appareil‑là va marcher sur la bande de fréquences qui est utilisée dans un autre pays ou même qui est utilisée par un fournisseur spécifique dans un autre pays.
1083 Et, en plus, je crois que... je crois que cette information pourrait être le genre d'information utile à apporter à une organisation dont le mandat est comme on vient de le décrire, mais je n'essaierai jamais de présumer que cet appareil‑là pourrait nécessairement être convenable dans le contexte canadien.
1084 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Je vous remercie.
1085 Une question au sujet, là, de l'accessibilité de vos sites internet. Vous en avez parlé dans votre soumission et je voulais vérifier avec vous si vous étiez à l'intérieur de vos échéanciers que vous avez mentionnés.
1086 Vous avez mentionné que le site internet de TVA et... pas de TVA, pardon, mais de Vidéotron était en refonte et serait compatible, là, avec la norme WCAG pour certains aspects et que la première phase viendrait à échéance à l'automne 2008 et la deuxième phase, au printemps 2009 que vous avez dit, mars avril, disons avril, est‑ce que ces échéanciers‑là sont toujours d'actualité?
1087 M. D. BÉLAND : Oui. La première phase, c'est d'abord le lancement d'une page unique qui ramasse toute l'information chez Vidéotron concernant les produits et services accessibles. Et, ça, ça vient d'être lancé la semaine dernière. Cette page‑là est disponible et cette page‑là est conforme avec le WCAG1.0.
1088 Pour ce qui est de la deuxième phase, là, on parle de la refonte complète du site de Vidéotron. Comme vous pouvez imaginer, c'est une initiative très complexe et très coûteuse qui déjà prend plus longtemps que prévu initialement.
1089 Ce qu'on a trouvé avec cette phase‑là, c'est d'abord le fait d'avoir sensibilisé les concepteurs aux normes et l'importance, notamment, de la norme WCAG1.0. Déjà ç'a eut ses effets parce qu'ils sont en train d'intégrer ces normes‑là dans la conception du nouveau site.
1090 L'engagement qu'on a fait, c'est que tout le contenu textuel de ce nouveau site sera conforme avec WCAG1.0 et tous les nouveaux contenus seront conformes également.
1091 Là où il y a exception, c'est concernant certains des contenus audiovisuels existants qui seront transférés au nouveau site, qui seront repris dans le nouveau site, mais qui ne seront pas nécessairement conformes.
1092 Le meilleur exemple qu'on a, c'est qu'on a sur notre site présentement une calculette qui permet à un abonné potentiel d'indiquer quel service l'intéresse puis de voir les prix, les rabais, the bundle, et caetera.
1093 Cette calculette est faite avec une technologie flash qui est, selon ce qu'on me dit, très difficilement compatible avec les normes WCAG.
1094 L'effort nécessaire pour refaire la calculette selon cette norme‑là serait très important et l'approche de Vidéotron, ça sera plutôt de, éventuellement, la prochaine fois, qu'on refasse la calculette, d'essayer de le faire selon une autre... en utilisant une autre technologie de base plus une technologie de type panier d'épicerie HTML.
1095 Mais la calculette, telle qu'elle existe présentement, est très difficile d'être compatible avec la norme WCAG.
1096 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Et vous dites que... Oui?
1097 M. TRÉPANIER: J'ajouterais, si vous me permettez, qu'on parle quand même de la satisfaction à la norme à un niveau de près de 95 pour cent, mais c'est que... et même que ce qui ne serait pas accessible parce qu'il s'agit d'une démo, par exemple, de télévision haute définition ou quelque chose dans le genre, sera décrit et sera accessible autrement.
1098 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Et quand vous dites que votre échéancier glisse un peu, là, on parle d'un glissement de?
1099 M. D. BÉLAND : Non. On parle toujours d'une refonte, un déficit en 2009.
1100 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : En 2009?
1101 M. D. BÉLAND : Mais avec le bémol qu'on ne prévoit pas que le site sera 100 pour cent compatible avec la norme qu'on a mentionnée.
1102 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Il me reste une question sur laquelle je veux revenir pour la haute définition numérique dans la distribution pour Vidéotron et, ensuite, je vais conclure sur la question des consultations.
1103 Est‑ce que vous entrevoyez, une fois que le passage au numérique sera complété pour la distribution sur Vidéotron, est‑ce que vous entrevoyez des difficultés à continuer à passer jusqu'à l'abonné de sous‑titrage et la vidéo description?
1104 M. TRÉPANIER: Lorsque... non, non. Lorsque le volet principal actuellement distribué en analogique sera distribué en numérique, il y aura suffisamment de bande passante pour assouplir les difficultés de passage de vidéo description et de sous‑titrage.
1105 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Et vous ne prévoyez pas de difficulté du fait qu'une bonne partie de cette programmation‑là va être en haute définition
1106 M. TRÉPANIER: C'est sûr qu'il va y avoir énormément de pression sur la bande passante aussi.
1107 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Oui.
1108 M. TRÉPANIER: Mais, malgré cette pression, parce qu'on parle de deux mégahertz pour chaque service de haute définition, malgré cette pression, il ne devrait plus y avoir le genre de difficulté de gestion serrée, là, que l'on doit suivre à l'heure actuelle.
1109 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : En ce qui concerne les processus de consultation, là, qui vont suivre d'instance, j'ai bien lu ce que vous avez écrit et comment vous avez commenté aussi la position de... la proposition de Bell Canada.
1110 Alors, si je peux résumer votre position en quatre points, quatre ou cinq points rapidement, vous êtes d'accord que seront‑ils nécessaire, vous allez y participer, vous croyez qu'on doit faire des groupes distincts pour les questions de radiodiffusion et de télécom et l'industrie et les groupes représentant les personnes handicapées doivent participer ainsi que le personnel du Conseil?
1111 Ça résume assez bien votre position?
1112 M. TRÉPANIER: J'ajouterais à ça ‑‑ ça résume bien notre position ‑‑ mais j'ajouterais à ça que probablement que les intervenants, de part et d'autre, seraient plus à l'aise s'il y avait en parallèle une consultation de langue française et une consultation de langue anglaise et que, ensuite, l'industrie et peut‑être aussi tous, là, mais ensuite il y aurait collaboration au niveau national.
1113 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Merci. Maintenant, compte tenu que la délimitation technologique entre l'infrastructure des télécoms et celle de la distribution de radiodiffusion est de plus en plus floue ‑‑ et je pense que Quebecor Media en est un exemple assez éloquent ‑‑ est‑ce qu'il n'y aurait pas des bénéfices à considérer l'ensemble des questions de télécom et de radiodiffusion, plutôt que de faire des groupes distincts?
1114 M. TRÉPANIER : C'est toujours possible, mais quand je fais mes réunions de service, puis on parle de 7‑1‑1 longtemps, puis les analystes de radiodiffusion sont là et ils trouvent le temps long, je me dis que ça serait des journées qui pourraient être pénibles pour le groupe, qui ne comprend pas vraiment ce qui est en train de se passer.
1115 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Donc, je comprends mieux maintenant votre commentaire à ce sujet‑là.
1116 Alors, ça conclut mes questions. Merci beaucoup pour votre patience à tout le monde, incluant mes collègues.
1117 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci.
1118 Je pense qu'il y a des questions de l'autre membre du Conseil.
1119 Steve...?
1120 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much.
1121 My questions are specifically focused on the issue of quality control with respect to closed captioning. My apologies for bringing you right back to the beginning of where this all started.
1122 For the record, and perhaps even for my own understanding, earlier one of the presenters, I believe it was the Centre québécois de la déficience auditive, had made an inference to their lack of belief that a broadcaster can take it upon themselves to self‑regulate or to apply levels of quality control, and in this particular instance they were referring to closed captioning.
1123 So my question is along this line: Given that there is a general direction toward some adoption of adherence to CAB standards concerning their pursuit of universal standards of quality and the reality that you are not part of the CAB working group any more, could you give me some idea of how you are going to approach the development and the application of your own quality standards for improving the quality of your closed captioning?
1124 MR. TRÉPANIER: First I would say that we believe that broadcasters are in a good position to assess the level of quality regarding the language itself. You know, if there is an error, there is an error; that is easy to realize, to see.
1125 I think that as far as assessing the amount of improvement that is needed, broadcasters may very well do that themselves.
1126 Where it becomes more difficult is that most people working in the media industry hear well and see well and there are things that we are not aware that were mistakes or there were problems of understanding the meaning of something. We thought it was okay but we did not know that it was impossible to understand.
1127 This is where it is a little more complicated, and I will happily read what the CAB has to say in the next few weeks. I think it will be published, that report.
1128 But we have to consult and to be in constant communications with those groups and unfortunately there are not too many of them in the province of Québec. We can certainly commit to remain in communications with these groups so that we are told that we have made mistakes that we may not be aware of and will try to be better next time.
1129 But creating ‑‑ and I will stop here; I know that I am a little long.
1130 Creating an organization to sort of supervise the quality may not be very efficient.
1131 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Would you agree or choose to not agree that in absence of any uniform standards that can be applied across the board that it would ‑‑ that if this Commission was to find improvements in standards on an individual broadcaster basis is not sufficient to the needs of groups with disabilities, it would be unrealistic for us to not have to look at a condition of licence in position in the future for something like that?
1132 You understand what I'm asking here, because we are trying to determine the desire as well as the ability of a broadcaster to adhere to standards.
1133 MR. TRÉPANIER: Well, if it's possible to identify standards across the board in both languages, we will ‑‑ first we have to maybe discuss that at the licence renewal because of our particular voice recognition software, but we may very well conclude that the standards are good for TVA as well in French. And then, you know, if everybody has a condition of licence, we will accept of course to have a condition of licence.
1134 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much.
1135 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Simpson.
1136 Commissioner Molnar...?
1137 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you. I have two questions and they are very unrelated.
1138 I just want to follow up firstly as it relates to your broadcast distribution Vidéotron. There was quite a discussion related to set‑top boxes and so on and some of the issues related to delivering the described video.
1139 The panel who was before you, if you were in the room you may have heard that one of the options that came forward was as a transitional measure until issues related to set‑top boxes and remotes are resolved. A transitional measure may be to provide the full over the air or ‑‑ and I shouldn't put the number, but provide the over the air described video on an open source basis using open format.
1140 Do you have any comments on the proposal?
1141 MR. TRÉPANIER: Yes. Thank you for the question.
1142 It comes down again to a question of bandwidth. If we are to distribute, let's say TVA again twice, once open captioned and once closed captioned, or one with video description and one without video description, it means a full channel.
1143 If cable operators do distribute channels, both in the analog mode and the digital mode, altogether it's more bandwidth than they actually have.
1144 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Just to focus our conversation a little bit, assuming that you would offer the free digital set‑top box and then potentially not require to offer this on the analog, just your digital, can you do that?
1145 I'm not certain what capacity constraints would exist within the digital environment.
1146 MR. TRÉPANIER: If we are talking about video description, that's right, it would be on the digital mode of distribution only and, as I said, it means adding ‑‑ for example, if were talking about over the air television, it means adding about 10 TV station channels, four TV stations in the Montréal area, and it will be terrible news for those who are actually currently managing the bandwidth.
1147 Maybe three years down the road it would be more feasible than it is now because now is the crunch. Now is the time where the high penetration tier has not been deleted or eliminated in the analog mode. So this is a time where bandwidth is very difficult to find.
1148 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. I am not certain that I fully understand the capacity constraints on the digital side, but I'm going to just move forward to my next question.
1149 My next question relates to your telecom operation.
1150 As a CLEC, I understand you provide message relay service to your customers.
1151 MR. BÉLAND: Yes, that's correct.
1152 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: As I'm sure you are aware, in this proceeding one of the issues that is being examined is enhancements to telecommunications relay service, both potentially and examining potentials of an IP relay service or a video relay service and also examining whether or not those should be regional or national service offerings.
1153 I wondered if you had any comments as a new entrant ‑‑ I guess not so new any more ‑‑ into the telecommunications side, your thoughts on providing national IP relay or video relay or both.
1154 MR. BÉLAND: On the matter of providing the services, to be frank, we don't have terribly much in the way of comments because what distinguishes these services from, let's call it traditional 711 service that's offered today is that the telephone service provider, whether it be an incumbent or a new entrant, is very marginally involved in the provision of these enhanced relay services.
1155 I have looked at some of the video relay services in the United States, for example, and for all intents and purposes they are Internet applications. A person goes to an Internet site, has some sort of account or identity on that site, clicks on the appropriate links, is up and talking or signing with an interpreter, and then at the very end of the process that interpreter dials into the traditional public phone network.
1156 So the involvement of telephone companies is marginal and only at the very end.
1157 So to be frank, we don't have terribly much to comment on in the way of how these services are provided.
1158 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Fair enough. The provision may be outside of any telecommunications service provider or maybe by selected service providers. I don't think that has been determined.
1159 How about the obligation as it relates to paying for the services?
1160 Do you believe that should be symmetrical across all communications?
1161 And let me ask you, because you will be soon much more active in the wireless side: Do you believe wireless should be part of the program as well as an access by wireless customers and payment of the service by wireless carriers?
1162 MR. BÉLAND: The financing of the service ‑‑ it's a social good. That's what that service would be.
1163 Our first response would be that the most logical means of financing a social good of that sort is through the government's own general revenues. Again, telecommunications companies or telephone companies, whether they be wireline or wireless, are fairly marginally involved in the actual provision of that service.
1164 The benefits of the service accrue to all economic sectors and Canadians generally. If disabled groups have greater access to communications, they are participating in the broader economy much more generally than just their interactions without communications service provider.
1165 So that would be our first comment. The most logical place to finance that sort of initiative would be through the government's general revenues.
1166 If it were to have to be financed through the entities that the CRTC regulates, it would seem to us that if you go to first purposes, you want to have the financing base that is as broad as possible. Given that this sort of service would be a mix of telecommunications and Internet functions in pieces, it would seem logical that you try to finance it on as broad a basis as possible.
1167 The reason I'm saying that is I have in mind ‑‑ I know the way it is financed in the U.S. is based I believe on long distance revenues or services.
1168 I have seen at least one party ‑‑ I don't recall which one ‑‑ attempted to provide a logical justification for why that was done in the United States having to do with long distance costs and that sort of thing, but I think the true reason why it was done that way in the United States is for pure jurisdictional and legal reasons related to what the FCC could tax and what they couldn't tax.
1169 So all that to say I think the American precedent would probably well be discarded and we would be better here in Canada to have a follow‑up consultation to look at establishing the broadest base possible with the least opportunities of escaping.
1170 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.
1171 THE CHAIRPERSON: I just have two quick ones as well.
1172 Do you provide MRS services in‑house or do you contract it out?
1173 MR. BÉLAND: We contract out.
1174 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Can you file with the Commission, since it is confidential, how much you have paid to this third party for MRS services over the last 12 months?
1175 MR. BÉLAND: Most certainly.
1176 THE CHAIRPERSON: The most recent 12 months.
1177 MR. BÉLAND: Certainly.
1178 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
1179 Questions from legal?
1180 MS LEHOUX: A few questions.
1181 Alors, Monsieur Trépanier, j'ai trois ou quatre questions à vous poser pour compléter le dossier à l'égard de certains sujets.
1182 Dans un premier temps, on veut savoir un peu ce que vous pensez de l'utilisation d'un guide audio tel que celui de Bell Télévision pour annoncer la disponibilité de programmes décrits.
1183 Est‑ce que vous êtes au courant de ce que Bell offre, parce que je peux vous le décrire pour vous donner une idée?
1184 M. TRÉPANIER : Je préférerais que vous me le décriviez. Je n'ai pas Bell à la maison.
1185 MME LEHOUX : D'accord. Alors, ce que Bell offre, son guide, en fait, est composé d'une narration accompagnée de texte en grand format pour aviser le public des programmes pour lesquels il existe la vidéo description.
1186 Donc, on veut savoir ce que vous en pensez et si vous seriez prêt à mettre en place un tel service.
1187 M. TRÉPANIER : J'imagine que, durant l'audience actuelle, on pourra avoir une idée de ce que les groupes concernés pensent de ce service‑là, et ça pourra nous donner une idée approximative de l'efficacité de ce service‑là.
1188 C'est déjà certainement une belle initiative, mais est‑ce que Vidéotron trouverait pratique et utile de prendre un canal, qui serait un canal numérique, donc, pour environ 52‑53 pour cent de sa clientèle, pour faire quelque chose de comparable à Bell?
1189 Je n'ai pas la réponse aujourd'hui. Je pense que suite à l'audience, on pourrait avoir une meilleure idée et on pourrait évaluer les coûts et voir s'il s'agit d'une initiative qui serait efficiente dans ce sens que le public visé l'apprécierait par rapport à ce que ça pourrait coûter à Vidéotron.
1190 MME LEHOUX : Merci. La deuxième question est par rapport aux plate‑formes des nouveaux médias, concerne la plate‑forme des nouveaux médias.
1191 En ce qui a trait à la programmation qui est déjà sous‑titrée ou qui est déjà vidéo‑décrite et qui est distribuée sur les plates‑formes conventionnelles, pourriez‑vous élaborer sur la faisabilité de distribuer cette programmation‑là, qui a déjà, par exemple, les sous‑titres, la distribuer sur la plate‑forme des nouveaux médias, donc, la faisabilité et les coûts qui seraient associés à ça, pour cette programmation‑là?
1192 M. TRÉPANIER: Lorsque l'on parle de nouveaux médias, souvent, on parle en très grande partie de l'Internet. On n'a pas évalué les coûts de sous‑titrage sur Internet.
1193 On a fureté un peu pour réaliser qu'un des seuls sites au monde qui offre le sous‑titrage, c'est la BBC, financée par l'état. Si personne d'autre au monde le fait, c'est que probablement, il y a un coût important à le faire.
1194 Est‑ce qu'on peut évaluer ce coût‑là et vous revenir? Sans doute. Mais est‑ce que, dans votre question, vous faites allusion aussi à la vidéo sur demande quand vous parlez de plates‑formes multimédias? Non, vous parlez d'Internet. Alors, on peut faire cette recherche‑là et vous revenir.
1195 MME LEHOUX : Parfait! Merci.
1196 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci beaucoup. That concludes this witness. Thank you very much.
1197 It is now 4 o'clock. We will reconvene at 4:15.
1198 M. TRÉPANIER : Merci.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1557 / Suspension à 1557
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1617 / Reprise à 1617
1199 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please.
1200 Madam Secretary...?
1201 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.
1202 Before we proceed, I would like to note that a letter from Bell Aliant, Subject Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2008‑8, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008‑8, Unresolved Issues Related to the Accessibility of Telecommunications and Broadcasting Services to Persons with Disabilities, dated 17 November, will be entered into the public record as Bell Canada Exhibit No. 1.
1203 A letter from the CAB dated 17 November 2008, Subject CAB's Action Plan For Closed Captioning in Response to Public Notice CRTC 2007‑54, A New Policy with Respect to Closed Captioning, will be entered into the public record as CAB Exhibit No. 1.
1204 We will now proceed with our next presenter, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
1205 Please introduce yourselves. You will then have 15 minutes for your presentation.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
1206 M. O'FARRELL : Merci, Madame la Secrétaire. Bon après‑midi, Monsieur le Président, conseillers et membres du personnel du Conseil.
1207 My name is Glenn O'Farrell. I am the President and CEO of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
1208 I would like to start off by introducing the colleagues who have joined me here this afternoon. Starting at my far left is Susan Wheeler, Vice‑President of Regulatory Affairs, Rogers Media Inc. Next to Susan is Jonathan Medline, Vice‑President of Regulatory Affairs, CanWest Media Inc. Beside Jonathan, nous avons Chantal Gagnon, vice‑présidente, Services techniques, Les Chaînes Télé Astral, et Chantal est membre aussi du Comité de travail sur le sous‑titrage codé.
1209 To my immediate left is David Goldstein, Senior Vice‑President of Regulatory Affairs, CTV Globemedia Inc. To my far right are Jay Thomson, CAB's VP Regulatory and Policy and Pierre‑Louis Smith, CAB's Vice‑President Policy and Chief regulatory Officer.
1210 Pierre‑Louis is also a member of both the French language working groups on closed captioning.
1211 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Panel, at the outset I would like to emphasize and take just a moment to remind this hearing and, for the record, that as always the first objective of broadcasters is to serve audiences. That is the business that broadcasting is all about.
1212 So at the core of that model is the very real necessity to constantly attract and work very hard to retain viewers and listeners. Broadcasters do this by striving to meet the needs of all segments of their audience.
1213 Meanwhile, no one in this hearing room ignores the very difficult current realities that we currently face, perhaps the most difficult in recent memory, and all sectors of the economy are facing is very real business challenges.
1214 For broadcasters, as the Commission has recognized, there are also fundamental structural changes and issues that must be addressed. As a result, tough decisions are being made, cutbacks are occurring in the sector.
1215 Subsection 3(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act, as you know, provides that the Canadian broadcasting system should provide "programming accessible by disabled persons as resources become available for that purpose".
1216 When resources have been available, it is clear that broadcasters have stepped up, having pioneered a number of initiatives that have greatly improved accessibility to television programming for Canadians with hearing and vision disabilities.
1217 For example, as part of this process the CAB commissioned and submitted a first‑ever comprehensive study of described video in Canada. That study found that while broadcasters face a number of challenges in getting programming described, not the least of which is the inordinate cost of doing so, they are nevertheless still committed to meeting their DV obligations.
1218 In terms of closed captioning, Canada's private broadcasters have made significant investments of time, money and personnel in the research, development and implementation of captioning technology and monitoring. In fact, private broadcasters have led several important initiatives in this area dating as far back as 1992, including the development of standards and protocols for closed captioning on English‑language broadcasts.
1219 Plus récemment, nous avons entrepris, à la demande du Conseil, de coordonner la mise sur pied d'un groupe de travail de langue française et d'un autre de langue anglaise sur le sous‑titrage. Ces groupes de travail se composent de représentants de services de télévision privés et publics et aussi de services de télévision éducatifs et de représentants des Canadiens sourds et malentendants.
1220 Le groupe de travail de langue anglaise centre son attention sur l'actualisation du cadre d'application volontaire à l'intention des services de télédiffusion privés de langue anglaise. La version mise à jour de ce code deviendra la norme uniforme sur le sous‑titrage pour tous les services de télévision publics, privés et éducatifs de langue anglaise exploités au Canada.
1221 De son côté, le groupe de langue française élabore un manuel précisant les normes et protocoles spécifiquement adaptées à la présentation du sous‑titrage en français. Ces nouvelles lignes directrices s'appliqueront à tous les services de télévision exploités dans le marché de langue française.
1222 Tel que demandé par le Conseil, les rapports élaborés par les groupes de travail, ainsi que les normes qu'ils proposent pour le sous‑titrage, seront soumis à la fin de ce mois‑ci.
1223 Monsieur le Président, le tableau que nous vous avons remis compare le Canada avec d'autres pays et il démontre clairement que le système de radiodiffusion canadien est un chef de file mondial dans le domaine des services offerts à nos citoyens handicapés.
1224 The chart appended to our presentation this afternoon presents in overall terms both current and forthcoming broadcasting services for the hearing and vision disability communities where only in the U.K., with its very significant public broadcasting focus through the very well‑funded BBC, is comparable to Canada.
1225 As you know, the U.S. has no described video obligations. Australia has no described video obligations and minimal closed captioning rules. A number of European countries have no accessibility rules for their broadcasters whatsoever.
1226 Moreover, the initiatives adopted by Canadian broadcasters to serve the disability community go beyond closed captioning and described video.
1227 As you know, in 2005 the CAB released a report on the presence, portrayal and participation of persons with disabilities in television programming. Our industry is proud of its progressive approach to the development and delivery of several important initiatives that stemmed from the extensive research and consultations that formed the basis for this report.
1228 You will recall these include: a PSA campaign called Open Your Mind; guidelines on language and terminology for use by broadcast news professionals; a widely distributed brochure on employment opportunities aimed at improving the participation of persons with disabilities in the industry; revisions to the CAB's best practices for cultural diversity to include people with disabilities, with CAB and its large members filing with the Commission annual reports which describe their diversity initiatives.
1229 And finally, the CAB's new equitable portrayal guide ‑‑ code, pardon me ‑‑ the first of its kind in the world. The revised code is being made available across Canada in 42 languages and in multiple formats.
1230 In addition, this very week we will be offering our English members an online diversity seminar or, if you will, a webinar, which, amongst other things, will look at common workplace barriers faced by people with disabilities and look at some basic cost effective solutions for employers to address those barriers.
1231 A similar webinar for our French members is in the works.
1232 Mr. Chairman, given all these Commission actions and broadcaster initiatives over many years, and including recent years, it is no surprise that, as we understand it, this current process was originally intended to focus on accessibility issues relating solely to telecom services.
1233 It is equally of no surprise that the written submissions of individuals and organizations representing the disability community have also related primarily to telecom issues, as well as to terminal equipment, especially for wireless devices.
1234 However, to a limited extent those interveners have also addressed broadcasting matters and their comments have focused on enhancing the services broadcasters already provide and which I have already described.
1235 While we appreciate where they are coming from and we respect that point of view, we urge the Commission to appreciate the very real resource issue that broadcasters currently face.
1236 You will hear more details from individual broadcasters in the context of their upcoming licence renewals, but there is no denying the challenging financial state of the industry in the wider context of the current economic difficulties that we all face.
1237 In this economy we submit the Commission must appreciate that even maintaining current levels of services will be challenging. That being said, we believe there are still ways we can work to enhance the services that are provided to Canadians by private broadcasters to Canadians with hearing and vision disabilities.
1238 Pierre‑Louis...?
1239 M. SMITH : Merci. Merci, Glenn.
1240 À cette fin, Monsieur le Président, nous recommandons que le groupe de travail de langue française et celui de langue anglaise sur le sous‑titrage demeurent actifs au‑delà de leur présent mandat. Nous aurons ainsi un moyen précieux pour permettre aux spécialistes d'échanger sur les enjeux relatifs au sous‑titrage et nous disposerons aussi d'un forum axé sur les solutions qui pourrait continuer à élaborer des pratiques exemplaires qui répondent aux besoins des sourds et des malentendants.
1241 Nous recommandons également d'inviter des représentants des entreprises de distribution et de radiodiffusion à participer à ces groupes de travail. Ainsi, les groupes de travail pourront continuer dans un avenir prévisible à aborder les questions touchant la totalité de la chaîne de communication du sous‑titrage.
1242 Jay...?
1243 MR. THOMSON: As regards described video, we note that one of the key findings of the study we submitted in this process and reflected again in the comments of parties before you this morning and this afternoon, is that most viewers simply don't know when described video programming is scheduled. This is certainly an area where we are prepared to take some decisive steps over the short term.
1244 Specifically, the CAB is prepared to proactively undertake the formation of a multi‑stakeholder working group with a 12‑month mandate to come up with a plan with specific recommendations to better promote available DV programming.
1245 We expect this initiative, in tandem with the upcoming launch of The Accessible Channel, will have a huge impact on consumer awareness regarding when and where described programming is available. As the Commission stated when it licensed The Accessible Channel, given that the service will offer 100 per cent open format DV and provide various types of programming to blind and visually impaired Canadians, it will be of exceptional importance to fulfilling the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
1246 We also hope that some day there will be a similar initiative or service in French to address the needs of French‑speaking Canadians who are blind or vision impaired.
1247 Glenn...?
1248 MR. O'FARRELL: In conclusion, it is important to remember, as I stated at the outset of this presentation, that broadcasters are audience driven. At the core of our business model is the necessity to constantly attract new viewers and new listeners. To put it simply, it is in our best interests, where resources permit, to respond decisively to the needs of all segments of our audience.
1249 It is our view that the industry, through its own initiative, has made enormous strides in recent years in serving the needs of Canadians with disabilities. When it comes to accessibility, Canada's private broadcasters have a proud record of having backed their verbal commitments with substantial investments which are not matched anywhere else, to our knowledge, in the world.
1250 We would be pleased to take your questions. Thank you very much.
1251 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation.
1252 One cannot help but open the papers up and read what has been happening in the whole world, let alone in the broadcasting industry in Canada, and so your points are well noted as well.
1253 I would ask Commissioner Denton to begin the questions.
1254 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
1255 I hear in your speech mentions of costs, that you are audience driven and current economic climate of which I wish to repeat we are all too well aware. Also the particular phrase, where resources permit.
1256 I now have a series of questions to ask you that basically get into the issues of where resources permit. You may not have the answers to these questions today. We can take notice and have them answered later.
1257 So you can say I don't know, which is a perfectly acceptable answer, but we are going to be probing certain areas where you may not have this information ready. We are going to be trying to find factual answers to what are basically quite factual questions.
1258 So bear with me as the questions may proceed to sound as if we haven't heard you, but we have heard you but now we have to ask the cost‑related questions and the detail oriented questions that come with this proceeding.
1259 So I'm going to ask you questions first of all about closed captioning, then about described video and then we are going to deal with some questions related to services delivered across the Internet and finally some last question on emergency services.
1260 But the bulk will be on closed captioning and described video. So let's start.
1261 The issue concerns the quality control practices regarding captioning by licensees. Are there in fact quality control programs instituted by broadcasters; and, if so, what do they consist of?
1262 MR. O'FARRELL: I will ask Pierre‑Louis Smith to address that question.
1263 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Glenn.
1264 That issue has been discussed in the context of both the closed captioning working group in English and in French. Some broadcasters have sort of rules of procedure with respect to the control of quality of their closed captioning. Some others are in the process of developing that.
1265 One of the recommendations of both working groups is that it is important that each broadcaster develop such rules of procedure to ensure quality control from the onset or at the production level, if you will, up until the moment that the signal leaves the broadcaster or the transmission centre.
1266 We cannot go for a one‑size‑fits‑all type of approach in terms of quality control type of measures, because each broadcaster's situation is different. Some broadcasters, for instance ‑‑ take an example of Showcase. It is relying almost exclusively on what we call pre‑produced or acquired programming and therefore the closed captioning is already integrated in the program that they are acquiring in most part.
1267 So it is a little bit easier for them to make the quality control verification, if you will.
1268 For some other broadcasters it is much more complicated. If you take a service like The Score or AVS for CTV, which are pretty much live captioning all the time, therefore it's a little bit complicated.
1269 Some broadcasters, like I said ‑‑ and I will ask Susan maybe to develop a little bit on what CTV ‑‑ sorry, what Rogers Sportsnet has developed in terms of rules of procedure and have responded to the need of providing quality control.
1270 Susan...?
1271 MS WHEELER: Thank you, Pierre‑Louis.
1272 Yes, we experience some difficulty with our closed captioning on Sportsnet in particular because of the level of live captioning that is required for sporting events.
1273 In response to complaints from Henry Vlug in particular, that caused us to reevaluate the protocols that we currently had in place to see how we could improve them. That review was actually quite helpful I believe to both our ability to offer better quality service to our audience and also in terms of giving the stakeholder, the end‑user, more satisfaction in terms of the responsiveness of the broadcaster.
1274 This was outlined in detail and I believe the Commission has it on the public record as our response to Mr. Vlug, and he has referenced it in his reply as well. But it does come down to really being able to customize your individual service and have protocols that are really unique to the nature of the service that you are providing.
1275 So the protocols for Sportsnet could be completely different from the protocols for City, for instance, or Omni for that matter, and I can tell you that that is largely the case.
1276 MR. MEDLINE: Maybe more for the purpose of illustration, I could talk about what Canwest ‑‑ you know, when we read some of the interventions, it came across that perhaps some people don't realize the sheer amount of work that broadcasters, in their various configurations, do behind the scenes in terms of monitoring closed captioning.
1277 For instance, for us, we have a third party do much of our live captioning. We have a service level agreement with those guys, so there is some contractual protection.
1278 They, themselves, have procedures in place to make sure there is a signal 10 minutes before we go to air, so that it is not a last‑minute rush.
1279 They also have random spot checks on their captions every day, to see what that is.
1280 And, then, internally ‑‑ so that's the third party ‑‑ internally ‑‑ and all broadcasters will have some configuration about this ‑‑ we have multiple checks and balances on quality.
1281 We have a master control in Calgary that monitors all television signals. We have a national operations centre in Winnipeg that has a computerized system that, if captioning goes off for more than 30 seconds, it alerts ‑‑ there is an electronic alert at any of our stations. That goes to the local station, which is also monitoring the closed captioning.
1282 The one thing that I should point out, though, is that closed captioning is a chain of events, and broadcasters are an important part of the chain, but we are not the final part of the chain. There are also the BDUs for most of our customers who receive their television signals, and also the television itself, or the tuner itself.
1283 Along that value chain, if there are problems, it is not always at the broadcaster, it can sometimes be at the BDU, or at the set‑top box level, or at the television level.
1284 But I think it is safe to say that all broadcasters are doing an awful lot of work, and maybe we haven't promoted ourselves well enough to explain that.
1285 MR. SMITH: Just to add, not only to that, but to piggyback a bit on what Jonathan has just said, there is a misunderstanding, and we need to provide more information with respect to what is involved in terms of the work to do closed captioning. It is not a question of not paying attention or not being willing to put the effort in. Sometimes errors do happen, whether because of the limitations of the technology we are using, or whether it is human error. It happens.
1286 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Noted.
1287 Does Quality Control focus on ensuring that the captioning signal is itself transmitted?
1288 Can anyone answer that?
1289 MR. O'FARRELL: I think the short answer is ‑‑ I think that what you have heard in the way of illustrative examples is yes, but one has to step back and look at ‑‑
1290 And I believe that Mr. Trépanier said it earlier with regard to some of the questions that Madame Lamarre was asking him about certain services versus certain other services. I think the expression he used was that "chaque chaîne a sa propre économie."
1291 In other words, it functions in its own universe on the basis of the nature of the service that it provides and how it actually operates.
1292 Therefore, that is why it is hard, or difficult to provide a one‑size‑fits‑all response, as Pierre‑Louis was suggesting earlier, that goes across the board in an identical way.
1293 The broad answer to your broad question is yes, but then you have to drill down and you have to reflect the individuality of each individual service to do honour and justice to the question you ask in a detailed way.
1294 COMMISSIONER DENTON: I suppose that we could ask each question individually of broadcasters, but that might obviate the utility of the CAB.
1295 If we have to, I guess we will, but I will take that under advisement.
1296 MR. O'FARRELL: Be my guest.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
1297 COMMISSIONER DENTON: The costs associated with these measures, would anyone care to ‑‑ I would like to hear some dollar figures, please, as to the order of magnitude of these kinds of costs.
1298 MR. SMITH: We haven't done any type of analysis in terms of the cost of quality control. I would rely on my colleagues from the enterprise to provide you with the answer, if the answer has been evaluated.
1299 MR. O'FARRELL: We have no industry‑wide costs, if that is the question you are asking, Commissioner.
1300 COMMISSIONER DENTON: No, but you have them specific ‑‑
1301 Would anyone like to speak to them specific to their particular companies?
1302 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Again, we don't mean to avoid the question, but it's a bit like apples and oranges, and it depends on what kind of programming you are captioning.
1303 Frankly, we are factoring it in as part of the ‑‑ the Quality Control element is being factored ‑‑ as part of the cost of captioning, it is being reflected in either the costs of our internal department or the external suppliers we are using.
1304 Then you go to, sort of, the average captioning costs, which vary, depending, obviously, on what kind of programming you are looking at, which was Pierre‑Louis' point.
1305 Just perhaps to go on the record with the size of the universe, for CTV alone, in 2006‑07, we did 121,957 hours of captioned programming just on the conventional networks, and those are in both national and local news, so you can see where it is difficult to derive a specific captioning cost, and therefore, within that captioning cost, what would be allocated to Quality Control.
1306 It is not a line item, and while we don't want to seem to be avoiding the question, it is a difficult one for us to drill down to.
1307 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Take it in the order of magnitude of just the costs to you of captioning as a whole.
1308 MR. O'FARRELL: Again, under the heading of being perfectly clear, we do not have an industry‑wide response to all captioning done by the private broadcasting sector in any given year that we can give to you at this point in time.
1309 If, for illustrative purposes, you are interested in what has been discussed at the working group levels, and what information is exchanged at that level as the currency of current practices, we certainly are happy to share that with you, or any other particular details that any one of the representatives of the corporate groups would like to provide.
1310 But I just want to be clear that we don't have the industry‑wide ‑‑
1311 COMMISSIONER DENTON: No, I understand that perfectly, Mr. O'Farrell. I would like to know for myself what the order of magnitude of these costs is for the various companies that compose your group.
1312 MR. SMITH: At the working group level, what we have focused on is more in terms of the human resources that are required to provide closed captioning, and to attain the 100 percent closed captioning set out in Public Notice 2007‑54.
1313 In the case of some broadcasters who are providing closed captioning internally ‑‑ and I can talk of a former member, because Quebecor appeared before us ‑‑ the increase in terms of resources has gone from 5 people working on closed captioning in 2001 to, currently, 35 people in 2007, and according to the information that I have been given, 40 people starting in 2009.
1314 So you can see that there has been a significant increase in terms of resources being provided.
1315 We haven't discussed at the working group level actual figures in terms of the costs of closed captioning, except for the fact to make differences between some ‑‑ providing or paying for some type of format for closed captioning versus other ‑‑ like providing pop‑on captioning versus roll‑up captioning, for instance.
1316 But there is no indication, broadly speaking, in terms of numbers.
1317 MR. MEDLINE: We could maybe speak to the hourly cost, as opposed to the overall cost.
1318 The hourly cost for closed captioning, at least for English‑language broadcasters, if they are using a third party ‑‑ it's a lot harder if you are looking at the internal cost, because there you are dealing with overhead, but if you are looking at third party, the range would be in the $165 to $300 range per hour, depending on the nature of the program, whether it's live or whether it's taped.
1319 That is the range you would be looking at.
1320 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.
1321 Is it my understanding that your working groups are, in fact, developing internal quality control policies for closed captioning?
1322 MR. SMITH: What we have done, Mr. Commissioner, is to discuss the issue of how do we achieve quality control with respect to closed captioning, and the recommendation of both working groups was to have licensees, or broadcasters, at the time of their licence renewal, come up to the Commission and propose their own rules of procedure, or guidelines, in terms of how they will ensure quality control.
1323 Once again, the idea is that we cannot apply a one‑size‑fits‑all approach because the circumstances of licensees or broadcasters are different from one broadcaster or one TV programming service to the next.
1324 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Then, would it be appropriate to establish, by Condition of Licence, universal standards that have been agreed upon by your closed captioning working groups?
1325 Would it be appropriate to establish, by Condition of Licence, the standards that have been established by your closed captioning working groups?
1326 MR. O'FARRELL: Mr. Commissioner, we would expect that that question would be best put to individual licensees, or the corporate groups, when they are before you for licence renewal. We are not here to agree or to suggest that that is appropriate as a matter of an industry or a sectoral position.
1327 Those are discussions that, I think, are best had, as they always are best had, in terms of Conditions of Licences, with individual licensees, who can make the best representations on their particular circumstances, and the need or the absence of a need for such requirements.
1328 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Turning now to another question, it has been put on the table by one of the participants that we need to establish an error rate in order to measure captioning accuracy. How do you identify errors and track them?
1329 MR. SMITH: Thank you for that question.
1330 We have had numerous discussions at the working group level, both English and French, on the issue of error rates: how do we define "errors", how do we establish what's reasonable, what's acceptable, and one of the comments that the users' representative, at least on the French side, and also Pierre Dumouchel, who is the head of CRIM, who's a sort of a think tank, a university think tank that developed ‑‑
1331 COMMISSIONER DENTON: I'm aware of it.
1332 MR. SMITH: That's right. Thank you ‑‑ and both Mr. Richard McNicoll and Mr. Dumouchel were saying that it's very difficult to establish an error rate and to define what "error" might constitute and that they need more time in discussions within the working group, and probably some additional research, to be able to help the working group come up with something that could be acceptable.
1333 And let me be clear here, it's related to live captioning to make the distinction between, you know, what is a faute d'orthographe versus an error that could have an influence, in terms of the meaning of the sentence.
1334 And without any type of complaint here, I was just looking at the captioning, in French, notably, and during the appearance of Quebecor just before us, I have counted at least 50 errors just during that period of time. And those errors are not because it's not well done, it's just it's the limitation of the technology.
1335 And it was one person speaking slowly to another person; whereas, as you know, on television you have all kinds of interaction between people appearing, whether it's a sportscast or it's a newscast or it's, you know, Election 2008, where there's all kinds of different information that are provided at the same time.
1336 So it's very difficult to establish, you know, a carved‑in‑stone error rate and a definition of what constitutes "error" and, based on that, to be able to build on what is reasonable, what is the ball park that is acceptable.
1337 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Granted the difficulty of doing so, have you attempted to do so and what are your results so far?
1338 MR. SMITH: Well, we have attempted to do so. We have had numerous discussions, both within the English working group and the French working group, and the sort of the conclusion at this point in time, sir, is that it would be more prudent and it would be best for both the users and the broadcasters that more time be allowed to do additional research and to do additional consultation and additional discussions on the issue. That's what I can report.
1339 MR. O'FARRELL: I assure you, Mr. Commission, that my colleague's response is not designed to be a teaser for you to want to read that report, when it's available, to go looking for it, we are giving you the best information we have on the nature of the discussions to date.
1340 And the conclusions are as we see them, but the report will speak for itself when we file it at the end of the month, and it will be there on the public record for others to look at it, as well.
1341 COMMISSIONER DENTON: So noted. Thank you.
1342 I would like to ask your opinion of the usefulness of voice recognition technology for the effective delivery of captioning. Is there a collective view on this?
1343 MR. O'FARRELL: Well, that has been discussed again at the working group, so I will Pierre‑Louis to address that.
1344 MR. SMITH: We have been careful in the discussions that we have had to take into consideration the fact that broadcasters are using different types of technologies. Some broadcasters are still using stenotypists for the live captioning. I know that's what CBC is currently doing, and Radio‑Canada as well. Some other broadcasters are using voice recognition as a way to provide live captioning.
1345 I can only speak from a personal experience. I have witnessed or have seen how it's being done and I was personally amazed at the quality or the fact that it is a system that could, in certain types of environment, like a newscast, for instance, provide tremendous quality captioning within less than five seconds, in terms of transmission between when the person speaking on the air is talking, the person that has to repeat the information is repeating the information, the software transcribing it into closed captioning and the transmission that goes to the street.
1346 MME GAGNON : Si je peux juste ajouter une petite information.
1347 Au fond, ce qu'on demande à un logiciel dans ce cas‑ci, c'est de travailler comme un cerveau humain, puis d'être capable de faire des associations phonétiques qui forment des mots, et le problème est justement là, c'est que souvent, ces associations‑là ne se font pas ou se font d'une façon différence de ce qu'on essaie d'exprimer, puis c'est ce qui cause les erreurs de compréhension, qui sont probablement les erreurs, je dirais, les plus graves en ondes pour le sous‑titrage en direct.
1348 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Noted.
1349 So, then perhaps this gets into the next question, is really the strength and weaknesses of existing stenography versus voice recognition technology.
1350 Anyone want to add to your point, Chantal?
1351 MME GAGNON : Je dirais que c'est sensiblement le même problème pour la sténotypie aussi. Je crois que ce qu'on reconnaît, c'est plus des phonèmes ou des débuts de mot, et je ne sais pas jusqu'à quel point un est plus précis par rapport à l'autre, mais je pense que dans les cas de sous‑titrage en direct, dans les deux situations, on a cette même problématique‑là, alors que dans les cas où on peut faire du sous‑titrage en différé ou en post‑production préalablement, il y a plusieurs étapes de vérification qui se font et où on peut procéder à des corrections de fautes d'orthographe ou de mots qui ne sont pas les bons mots qui étaient exprimés.
1352 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good.
1353 MR. O'FARRELL: The CAB has looked into voice recognition technology on the English side in 2005 in response to some questions from the Canadian Association for the Deaf. I think it was referenced in the CAB's submissions. There, at least on the English side, it was recognized that at the time, and I think it's still safe to say, that if you went to voice recognition technology you would experience higher error rates.
1354 It may be cheaper, frankly, to go to a software solution but you would experience much higher error rates, given the various difficulties: different accents, different people, you have got train the systems, and, you know, newscasts that can be very difficult, amongst other different types of programming, so the stenography solution is still used, for the most part, by most English‑language broadcasters I think in order to keep the error rates to a reasonable level.
1355 MME GAGNON : En fait, je dirais c'est un peu la même problématique pour un Canadien qui va en Europe. Que ce soit un Québécois en France ou un Canadien anglais en Angleterre, on a de la difficulté à se comprendre déjà là, et pourtant, on parle la même langue. C'est des gens intelligents qui s'écoutent et qui utilisent les mêmes mots, mais parfois, il y a de la difficulté de compréhension.
1356 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good, thank you.
1357 Now here's a question you are all going to enjoy answering because you can now talk about BDUs. So would you please elaborate, with examples, on your assertions that BDUs have a role to play in ensuring captioning quality?
1358 MR. O'FARRELL: I think I will ask Mr. Medline to pick up where he left off on his chain of ‑‑basically, the value proposition or the value chain, but I think it's clear, Mr. Commissioner, that it's not a matter of pointing a finger, it's a matter of the looking at things for what they are, and, realistically, where consumers actually access the programming is overwhelming through subscriber services that they purchase from BDUs, be they cable or satellite.
1359 Ultimately, that has to be part of the scrutiny of this situation to assist in finding out what needs to be discovered, in terms of where things are at and where things could be improved. But, as Jonathan said, it's not just the BDUs, there are other elements along the way.
1360 So it's not just to say BDUs should be put on the hotseat here, there's a responsibility and there's a bit of ownership that has to be taken there, but I think there are other players, as well.
1361 Jonathan?
1362 MR. MEDLINE: Sure.
1363 So Glen's right, 92 percent of our customers nation‑wide receive it through some form of BDU, so 92 percent of Canadians will receive their captioning with a BDU somewhere in that chain of events.
1364 And I think other broadcasters probably do this too, we monitor the signal that comes not just out of our studios or out of master control or out of our transmitters, but also for as many BDUs as we can, especially the larger BDUs, to see whether there's problems on that end. We need to know if it's our problem if captioning, for instance, drops or if it was only a particular BDU where it dropped.
1365 So the fact is on technical issues like that it is in various parts of the chain. Sometimes it's something in our shop, sometimes at the local station, sometimes it's somewhere along the chain, sometimes at the BDU, sometimes at the end user set. That really is just the reality of it.
1366 Again, I don't think we are pointing fingers, it's just it is the reality of getting it to 92 percent of the Canadian population.
1367 MR. GOLDSTEIN: And if I can just add to that, Commissioner, and I don't often do this but I'm going to throw a laurel to my friends in the BDU industry, they have their own challenges to bear on this. I think Mr. Trépanier raised the issue himself with the configuration of set‑top boxes and that, because of the absence of regulation in the United States and because while he and the other BDUs in this country may be large customers here, they are not large customers in a North American context, and therefore specifications to those boxes can be difficult.
1368 We are also looking at issues regarding television manufacturers. And this is an issue that we had some time ago back when we were having discussion about a V‑chip, but, you know, these are also an area where errors come to play.
1369 I think we are in a fragile situation, not one that can't be corrected, but a fragile situation, as we all make the transition to digital, both for over‑the‑air television and specialty because, just to get on top of John's point, 92 percent of our viewers are over‑the‑air viewers who are actually watching via BDU, but 100 percent of the specialty viewers are watching via BDU.
1370 So how we all make that digital transition together is going to impact on several issues, this not being the least of them.
1371 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Noted. So I would say that from what I'm hearing that, though they may have some responsibility in principle, I'm not hearing complaints in practice.
1372 MR. O'FARRELL: I think that what we are saying is we are not coming here with any specific complaints that we wish to put on the record for this hearing in specific terms, but I think what we are saying is that the overall chain has to be examined for the reality of the distribution that flows from the way programs are consumed by Canadians.
1373 Ultimately, part of that chain includes a BDU. And to the extent that there are circumstances where there is the possibility for a BDU having failed or having created a situation that does not allow for the orderly delivery of the programming service with the captioning in it as it was originally transmitted by the originating station, there's an issue there. And David takes it a step further and says, well, what about the set‑top boxes themselves, and then, of course, the manufacturers?
1374 So I think what we are saying here is this is an exercise which we are happy to participate in and look at what can be done to look at solutions going forward and we are saying the broader picture has to be on the table and all of the components in the equation should be considered in their respective role in delivering signals, with captioning in the signals, to Canadian consumers.
1375 MR. SMITH: And if I may add, this is why both working groups are recommending unanimously that the working group composition be extended to have also BDU representatives around the table. Because that way we are able to exchange on issues that are all the way through the communication chain.
1376 And that allows me, just to set the record straight ‑‑ and I don't want to contradict my dear friend Edouard Trepanier, but I will, with his benediction ‑‑ we are inviting BDUs, including Vidéotron, to be part of the working groups, but also just to let you know that TVA is a member of good standing of those working groups. Actually, in fact, we are meeting at TVA for the next meeting of the French working group.
1377 Thank you.
1378 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.
1379 I'm going to turn now to the issue of described videos, we are going to change the topic somewhat here, and ‑‑
1380 MR. O'FARRELL: Commissioner Denton, before you leave this, could I just make one point, if I may, very, very quickly, simply because I think that it's a good reference point for the Commission ‑‑ I just want to take 30 seconds to walk you through it ‑‑ and that's the summary grid that we attached.
1381 We are not suggesting that this is an exhaustive grid, but we think it's a representative grid of where broadcasters are and where their obligations are across the world. And when you look at it and you compare what is occurring in Canada, by way of this Commission's leadership and the leadership of private broadcasters, as compared to the United States, the UK, Ireland, France and Australia, the Canadian situation is in the leadership position.
1382 And I think that shouldn't be lost on any of us, particularly when we are in the circumstances that we were describing earlier: about the difficult economic times. It was where resources were available that it allowed us to get this far, and I think what you hear is an undertaking to maintain that.
1383 That's not necessarily going to be without challenges, but we are in a very good position, as compared to the accessibility measures that are available for captioning in other countries, at least those that are on this chart.
1384 Thank you.
1385 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Noted. Good advertising.
1386 And just let me say that the question of where resources permit requires us to ask question bearing on dollars and what it costs you, so that the more you can supply us about what dollars ‑‑ what it costs you and what additional measures cost you, the better we can evaluate some of these things, some of these proposals that are made to add to your cost base. So that's the point of asking direct questions about money.
1387 MR. O'FARRELL: Well, as a follow‑up advertising ‑‑
1388 COMMISSIONER DENTON: You are incorrigible!
1389 MR. O'FARRELL: As a follow‑up advertising, I would say that we have come this far thanks to the concern that the Commission brought to this task and the approach that was brought to the assessment of what resources were available at that time as the various measures were brought forward and adopted.
1390 And when I look at other countries, where, arguably, whether it's the UK, Ireland, France or Australia, circumstances there were not altogether similar but were not altogether dissimilar to the circumstances in Canada and their accessibility measures are far below ours, I just think that it's something that is worth noting, even be it twice. My apologies.
1391 MR. SMITH: And also the footnotes, because if you look at the U.S., for instance ‑‑
1392 COMMISSIONER DENTON: The less you advertise, the sooner you are going to get out of here, so....
1393 MR. SMITH: I was just wanting to point out that even though we mentioned that it's 100 percent of programming that is to be closed captioned, it only applies for programming that has been made since 2006. For programming pre‑2006, the level of captioning is 75 percent.
1394 Thank you.
1395 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Noted.
1396 I want to go to the costs of described video, and we want to get some elaboration on some of the figures you have presented. You cited a figure that included $800 per half hour for post‑production costs and our question is: does this cost apply equally regardless of the type of production being described?
1397 MR. O'FARRELL: I'm going to ask Jay Thomson to answer that, and I believe that Chantal Gagnon may wish to add something as well.
1398 Jay?
1399 MR. THOMSON: In the English‑language market the average price is in the neighbourhood of $800 a half hour and in the French market or for French programming the average price is $1,750 for an hour, or half that for half an hour. So those are just average prices, we don't have details as to the exact amount per program category.
1400 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Okay. That's an answer. So you don't know the answer to that question?
1401 MR. THOMSON: Correct.
1402 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good.
1403 MS GAGNON: Maybe I can add something.
1404 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Certainly.
1405 MME GAGNON : Si je peux juste expliquer un petit peu pourquoi il y a des frais de post‑production.
1406 C'est qu'au niveau de la vidéodescription, ce qui se passe vraiment, c'est que ça ressemble plus à de la production de contenu qu'à vraiment une retranscription comme ce qui se passe pour le sous‑titrage. C'est‑à‑dire on écoute quelque chose, et on retranscrit textuellement ce qui est dit.
1407 Dans le cas de la vidéonarration, au fond, c'est vraiment on crée une nouvelle trame sonore, une nouvelle trame de narration. Donc, il y a des frais de... c'est‑à‑dire que quelqu'un doit écrire un texte. Mais avant tout, il faut que quelqu'un visionne le document, regarde où est‑ce qu'il y a des emplacements où on peut insérer des commentaires. Ensuite de ça, on doit écrire les textes qui doivent être placés à ces endroits‑là, enregistrer les voix en chronométrant pour que, évidemment, ça entre entre les dialogues qui sont déjà existants. Par la suite, il faut aller en salle de montage pour mixer ces commentaires‑là avec la trame sonore qui est déjà existante. Il faut recoucher la piste audio, ensuite, sur le document.
1408 Donc, c'est tous ces frais‑là qui augmentent, je dirais, le coût par rapport au sous‑titrage.
1409 CONSEILLER DENTON : Oui, on comprend ces faits. Merci.
1410 Okay, the next question was the same order of question. You cited the $125,000 in annual post‑production costs for three English and French series.
1411 Now, how is that figure determined.
1412 MR. THOMSON: Well, the study was undertaken by an independent consultant and the information that we have available, in terms of how that number was derived at, is only what's on the record.
1413 COMMISSIONER DENTON: In other words, we don't know more than just that it's the consultant's determination?
1414 MR. THOMSON: That's right.
1415 COMMISSIONER DENTON: You cited another figure of $30,000 in annual costs to broadcasters for distribution, including how this number would vary if the number of hours of programming were increased.
1416 How is that $30,000 figure derived and how would it vary if the number of hours to be described were increased? So how was that figure derived and how would it vary if the number of hours would increase?
1417 MR. THOMSON: I'm sorry to say that my answer would be the same: that's a figure that was produced by our independent consultant. We put the study forward as an objective document that we did not ourselves, and the association, have input into in terms of determining the numbers or the background to the numbers. So the numbers stand for themselves.
1418 MR. O'FARRELL: Mr. Commissioner, if those questions are significant, we could certainly ask the independent consultant to provide whatever background calculations are not on the record to perhaps further ‑‑
1419 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Everything that helps us to determine real dollars helps us to answer the question, so the answer is yes.
1420 MR. O'FARRELL: So we would be happy to ask the consultant to do that.
1421 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good. Thank you. So noted.
1422 One of the concepts under consideration is a programming fund for described video, and the questions I'm about to ask bear on the operation of such a hypothetical fund.
1423 In relation to this programming or funding pool has thought been given to how these resources would be pooled for a described video fund?
1424 MR. THOMSON: Well, I think it's fair to say that we have not suggested that there be such a fund created. I believe that may have been from some other intervenors and has been targeted at BDUs as being the potential payors into that fund. So we have not done any research or we have not looked into the concept of how such a fund might be administered.
1425 COMMISSIONER DENTON: So noted. Thank you.
1426 One of the proposals by a certain Mr. Eadie at his hearing was that all subscribers be charged 20 cents per month to create an accessibility fund for described video. Would such a fund be used? And if so, why?
1427 MR. O'FARRELL: We have not discussed or we don't have a position on that proposal, Mr. Commissioner.
1428 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.
1429 This is probably a question that you are able to answer.
1430 What other genres, apart from dramas, documentaries and children's programming, lend themselves well to described video?
1431 MR. THOMSON: Well, if I may start, the issue that is raised about genres for described video, and the limitations that arguable are put on those areas, and why it's potentially a problem, it starts at the principal level, I think, and with a sense of what the blind and visually impaired community may very well be interested in in terms of programming. They could very well be interested in programming that goes beyond the genres the Commission has identified as qualifying for the obligations that are imposed by Condition of Licence or otherwise.
1432 Right now they are drama and long‑form documentary, and, to some extent, children's. But perhaps, as another party suggested today, it could extend into informal education, or some of the other areas, perhaps even news or sports, if there were technology developed that would make those programs possible to be described.
1433 They may not exist right now, but there is no sense in principle, in our opinion, that they should be excluded simply because they are not necessarily available now.
1434 MR. MEDLINE: Can I add my passion to this response? There is a rule that Jay is referring to that there are only two and a half categories, really, that are allowed to be put to described video.
1435 I simply do not understand ‑‑ or to count toward the obligations.
1436 This rule is not about independent production, this rule is about providing the end user with described video.
1437 The question, in my opinion, is not which categories lend themselves most easily or best to described video. We know what those are, and I would agree that informal education, which is 5(b) ‑‑ and there are a few others, I think Category 11, and perhaps variety, too, could work.
1438 I just don't understand the rule at all.
1439 If we can't do news, if we can't do sports, then we won't do it, but why would we be prevented from doing it, or counting it toward an obligation if we could, and if it would make sense to the end users?
1440 I am just a little concerned that the rule itself lacks logic, and we are focusing on categories themselves and not the rule itself.
1441 COMMISSIONER DENTON: I hear you.
1442 The next question: What measures do broadcasters currently have in place to ensure that programming not subject to described video requirements contains the appropriate audio description?
1443 MR. THOMSON: I think that would be a question that our individual members would have to address, Mr. Commissioner.
1444 MR. O'FARRELL: It seems to me that that is, again, within the context of the upcoming licence renewals, where that area of exploration is probably best considered, because each group will, in all likelihood, have its own answer, and, frankly, probably a different answer from group to group, as you go through the licence renewal process.
1445 COMMISSIONER DENTON: I am going to ask the question; you can give it your answer.
1446 If the Commission were to adopt your proposal to increase described video, starting at 14 hours a week in Year 1 and ramping up to 28 hours a week in Year 7 of your broadcasting licence terms, should these requirements apply equally to all program undertakings, whether over‑the‑air, specialty, pay, pay‑per‑view, video‑on‑demand?
1447 MR. O'FARRELL: Again, these are questions that our individual corporate group members would be best suited to respond at their licence renewals, on the basis of their plans and operational realities going forward.
1448 As a matter of personal opinion, it would make no sense to me.
1449 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.
1450 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I'm sorry, Commissioner, can I just add something here?
1451 We are happy to get back to you on this, but the 28 hours ‑‑ I think you have to look at what the complement of Canadian programming is.
1452 For example, for one of our conventional stations to find those hours that are not news or sports driven ‑‑ it would be very difficult to find 28 hours in the schedule.
1453 So I think that there are some practical elements that would have to be looked at based on each licensee's Conditions of Licence and programming.
1454 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Would anyone else on the panel care to give their opinion on this?
1455 MR. MEDLINE: I second exactly what was just said, but in addition to that ‑‑ and I know that you want to talk about costs, and the right place to do that is at licence renewal, because we all have different schedules and we all have different financial and other resources available to us.
1456 I just want to talk about the quantum for a moment. That is a quantum leap, in fairness. It is very difficult to meet, for over‑the‑air ‑‑ and I think I can speak ‑‑ I can speak for Canwest, and I think I can speak for other broadcasters, but jump in if I'm not ‑‑
1457 It is hard to get to the levels that we are currently at, given the current resources. It is just very difficult.
1458 When I hear a number like 14 next year, that is ‑‑ my math may be wrong, but three and a half times what we are currently doing, and we are already, I would guess, the number 2 country on Earth, after the U.K., on described video.
1459 It doesn't sound like a lot, but it really is a lot. It has been hard to get to the levels that we are at already.
1460 COMMISSIONER DENTON: If you enjoyed that question, I have another one for you.
1461 Based on the calculations that we have done, which were basically derived from figures you supplied, it would appear that current described video requirements of 4 hours a week represent approximately half of 1 percent of the major over‑the‑airs' 2007 programming expenditures.
1462 These are straight calculations from the information you supplied.
1463 At what point would increases to described video requirements represent undue hardship for licensees in terms of the percentage spending on described video, as compared to overall spending on programming?
1464 MR. O'FARRELL: You won't be surprised with my response; that is, again, the best qualified parties to provide you with the right answer to that question are, indeed, the corporate groups themselves, who, in the context of their licence renewals, will know what they have filed, what their plans are, what their operational realities are going forward, and will be in the best place, and I believe the only valid voice to offer an enlightened and informed view on that.
1465 Having said that, this discussion and this line of questioning strikes me as the line of questioning that, for some reason, forgets the reality of where we are at ‑‑ and I am not talking about the economic reality that we alluded to earlier. It's as if we are talking about the regulated system the way it was 15 years ago, where it was a system unto itself, and no media that wasn't licensed by this Commission ‑‑ electronic media ‑‑ competed for viewers and competed for advertisers. Effectively, this Commission was the port of entry and the port of exit for players into the system and out of the system, and everything that happened in between.
1466 Whereas now we are, in 2008, as you know, in this environment where it is fundamentally different, and it is different to the extent that we have our Commission leading a new media hearing in the not too distant future to look at some of these issues that, I believe, we are going to discuss later in your questions.
1467 It strikes me that we are engaged in a discussion about a system that has changed dramatically, that is no longer the system it once was, and no longer has the capability, because of the changes in technology, to perform the things that were once expected of it.
1468 That is a paradigm shift that, I think, we all have to start making sooner than later, and I think that we all are coming to it on our own terms.
1469 But it is not to sit here in this hearing room and hear the views of intervenors and not feel sympathetic to them. Everybody would feel sympathetic to them.
1470 There are a number of views that you would want to be able to respond to, but they are founded on the assumption that the system is closed, and that you operate as the gatekeeper of that system, and that the system cannot be opened unless this Commission exercises its authority to do so.
1471 Whereas we know that media is being offered over, above, and beside to consumers every day, and the market shares of the regulated players are becoming more and more fragmented and reduced by virtue of this new competition model we are facing.
1472 It just strikes me that the questions seem to be struck on assumptions that are different from those that, I believe, dictate the reality that we are in today.
1473 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Could I just add that it is becoming clear to us, Commissioner Denton, that you would like to talk about numbers, so we can talk about some numbers.
1474 To Glenn's point, we are talking about an industry that showed, in its returns to the CRTC, PBIT returns of about 5 percent last year. That is mid single digit 5 percent, and a large part of that great growth from the year before was the fact that we didn't have to pay our Part 2 licence fees last year, which is still being litigated in the courts.
1475 But let's say that the returns for private OTA broadcasters were in the mid single digits, and, as you put it, one‑half of 1 percent is actually a material amount of money to this industry, and that $1 million moving from one side of the ledger to the other is ‑‑
1476 I should take a step back as to why it is more appropriate to have this discussion at the group licence renewal, because there will be the balance of the decisions that need to be made wholistically for the system going forward.
1477 A million dollars, I would say, off the top of my head, is 17 or 18 newsroom positions.
1478 And, collectively, we are going to have to come to the Commission, at the group licence renewal, and put to you a proposal as to where the obligations, both within the Act and the assumptions in the Act, and how we fulfil that as private broadcasters ‑‑ how we are going to meet those objectives.
1479 You can't just move those finite resources from one area to the other without having some sort of reciprocal impact.
1480 There is a number, and to Jonathan's point, given the fact that described video is five times the cost of closed captioning, that is a significant investment that we would have to make on top of that, and it would have a corresponding result elsewhere.
1481 COMMISSIONER DENTON: I did warn you that my questions would appear to give you the impression that I believed in the broadcasting system circa 1965. I don't.
1482 So take a deep breath and we will go on for a few minutes more.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
1483 MR. O'FARRELL: We're fine.
1484 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Okay. It may be a little painful, but we are going to get through these. And, as I keep on saying, the more we can know about detail of what these things mean, then we are making progress in getting to the answers we need. Thank you.
1485 One of the questions in terms of practicality of a way of proceeding on issues of described video is whether a working group should be set up, whether it would be beneficial to identify and resolve technical issues relating to described video in the broadcasting and distribution systems.
1486 Would you care to comment on the utility and nature of such a group and whether it would be of assistance in resolving questions in this area?
1487 MR. THOMSON: We are all in favour of the working group model. We think it has been very successful in the area of closed captioning and, as we proposed in our opening remarks, we are quite supportive of the notion of a multi‑stakeholder working group.
1488 We propose in particular to look at awareness issues which we understand are very, very important and require input from broadcasters, the disability community, BDUs and anyone else who might have an interest in that area.
1489 So yes, a working group is something that we would support.
1490 COMMISSIONER DENTON: One of the issues that came up before us was the notion of giving people information about whether described video would be available by means of a standard logo or audio announcement preceding the broadcast of described programming and after each commercial break.
1491 I would like your comments on those two notions: first logo, second announcement.
1492 MR. THOMSON: Both of those matters would be ones that we would explore within the working group that we have proposed, as well as any other kind of opportunities to promote awareness, whether it's 1‑800 lines, whether it's working with BDUs on their EPGs, whether it's some other kind of opportunity that we are not even aware of that somebody else out there has an idea that's worth exploring.
1493 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Have you in fact considered the notion of logos for described video yet or is this new to your agenda?
1494 MR. THOMSON: The notion of logos and audio announcement had been explored in the past in a working group that met, as I understand a couple of times, but then never proceeded much beyond that.
1495 With deference to those in the blind and vision disabled community, we are not sure that a logo itself would accomplish much, given that it's a visual medium, but that something that they would have to tell us more about.
1496 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Next question: Would announcements pay for themselves if they were sold by broadcasters as sponsorship opportunities?
1497 MR. O'FARRELL: Well, I'm going to begin the response and others may want to join in.
1498 Again ‑‑ and I know you said we need to take a deep breath, but that's a notion, Commissioner, that flows from a mindset that is no longer relevant or pertinent to 2008. That's the kind of thinking that was successful, though, in a former world when closed captioning was introduced.
1499 People said how can we finance or assist in the financing of closed captioning expenditures and the whole concept of sponsorship came up.
1500 Back then 12 minutes an hour was what you could sell on conventional television, eight minutes an hour was what you could sell on specialty television. That's all changed now, first of all, but back then it was possible to introduce more commercial inventory to support captioning activities and it was seen to be a new source of revenue, minor but nonetheless a new source of revenue that could offset some of or a good part of the cost of captioning.
1501 In the world that we live in today, which is not the mid‑'90s when that measure came forward ‑‑ I can't recall exactly the year, but I believe it was early to mid '90s ‑‑ there was an opportunity to sell more time in the electronic media space of television.
1502 If you look today in 2008, with the new rules that apply to the number of minutes of advertising, credits that were given for instance in the not so distant past for drama incentives on conventional television, but also just the inventory of minutes that are remaining for sale as opposed to sold‑out levels as they existed in the not so distant past, it is a brand new set of circumstances.
1503 So the old idea which had ‑‑ and I say this respectfully ‑‑ and made a lot of sense in another time just doesn't apply with the same logic any more.
1504 I would be loathe to suggest to you that we have a number that would say yes, it could project ‑‑ we could project reasonably this new revenue because one would assume well, if there is new revenue to be created or to be drawn into the system, wouldn't you be sold out or closer to a sold‑out position now?
1505 That is I believe the reality that we deal with today.
1506 Does anybody want to add anything to that?
1507 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Again, not to reiterate what Glenn said, but when you change the supply or you open up the supply of advertising it changes the market.
1508 What you will see ‑‑ I mean for a CTV example, a lot of the closed captioning brought to you as an add‑on or a spiff for the client for a particular program doesn't attribute a particular premium, and what you are often seeing now is using it as a Canadian promotion and an opportunity for other programming. You often hear, you know, closed captioning brought to you by Canadian Idol or one of those other shows.
1509 So, you know, once you open up the commercial inventory in that marketplace, it changed those dynamics.
‑‑‑ Pause
1510 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Mr. Chairman, I think this completes my questions. Thank you.
1511 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Denton.
1512 I have a couple of questions and perhaps some of my colleagues have some as well.
1513 I want to go back to something that I think, Mr. Goldstein, you mentioned earlier and I was going to bring up as well, and that is not withstanding the issue of cost and economics, the ability to effect manufacturing change à la the V‑chip.
1514 I'm not sure if any of you were around in those days. I wasn't. Can someone sort of explain to us how the industry got together, both the broadcasters and the BDUs, and managed to effect a manufacturing change with regard to the V‑chip being introduced in Canada?
1515 MR. O'FARRELL: I don't know that anybody has hands‑on experience. I'm sure that the Commission's records are pretty clear on how that came about and I think there was a fair amount of leadership that came from the Commission at the time.
1516 But the long and short of it is that basically there was a group, I guess a collective effort that was created around the leadership of the Commission that brought in a variety of players for consultation and ultimately a working plan that was developed from that.
1517 Does anybody want to add anything to that?
1518 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, just to give it ‑‑ I was actually staff at the CAB at the time.
1519 It was not a process dissimilar to the one that we are involved with right now. I will give a certain amount of credit to Al McKay who was extremely involved in pulling the stakeholders together.
1520 But to your point, Mr. Vice‑Chair, we did face the biggest hurdle, which was technological compatibility with the sets that were coming out of the United States. And it was a sense of having to commit the United States to a program that was part of the difficulty.
1521 I will recall Mr. O'Farrell's predecessor, Mr. McCabe, about it's got to be 12 years ago went to make a speech in Washington about violence and getting chastised by the NAB and basically being told don't bring that stuff down here. We don't want to talk about that stuff here.
1522 So it was an extremely difficult battle, not just amongst ourselves, but broadcasters in the U.S. who did not want to participate in that type of program.
1523 As you follow the history on the other side of the border, folks like Senator McCain actually, who are very involved in the legislative front in the U.S. Congress, but it was only from pressure from that side that actually allowed the technology to change for us, who were already in the midst of a working group to take full vintage of that.
1524 MR. SMITH: I can concur with what my colleague is saying because I was sitting on AgBot in the mid‑'90s and I witnessed those types of discussions and challenges, if you will.
1525 MME GAGNON : Si je peux rajouter quelque chose. Pour le marché québécois, le système V‑chip ne fonctionne pas en tant que tel. Ce qui se fait présentement, c'est que les informations sont envoyées en même temps que les informations destinées au guide électronique qu'on peut avoir avec la télécommande, et ces informations‑là sont entrées à la main, je pense, dans les bases de données des distributeurs.
1526 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Just to add, as a father I find the functions on my digital set‑top box are much more amenable to controlling or monitoring ‑‑ controlling what my kids are watching than the V‑chip was able to achieve.
1527 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
1528 Ms Wheeler, were you going to jump in there?
1529 MS WHEELER: I think the reality is that the Canadian classification system for V‑chip was never actually adopted by the equipment. It is a form of a rating system, but it is actually not adhering chapter and verse to the classification system that was set out by AgBot and it remains a technology issue and an equipment issue.
1530 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
1531 In your opening remarks this afternoon you talked about being supportive of a multi‑stakeholder working group for digital described video. One of the things you also said in here as well as in your evidence filed earlier was the need to include BDUs in the closed captioning issue. We talked a bit about it earlier; you did with Commissioner Denton as well. But you didn't offer up your services to try and bridge the gap and bring the parties together.
1532 Was that just my interpretation of there is no offer there? You say we've got to engage the BDUs. Is the comment from the CAB to the Commission we can't do it alone ‑‑ you can't do it alone and you need us to bring the BDUs to the table, or are you looking for us to take it to the next step?
1533 MR. O'FARRELL: I think that it would certainly serve the purpose of ensuring the kind of collaboration that would be required if a bit of a nudge comes from the Commission. I think that validates the Commission's concern that BDUs be party to the process and be part of the solution, and therefore there would be I think a great usefulness that would be served by the Commission stepping in and, if it so decides, moving on that proposition by requesting or suggesting that the BDUs join the group.
1534 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
1535 My last question, and it's actually addressed to Mr. Medline, I guess, because it's a CanWest submission.
1536 I refer you to your September 5, 2008 filing in response to question No. 1. It had to do with web accessibility and W3C initiatives.
1537 You stated in here two things. One is that there is no Canadian government body standard. And two, you I guess alleged that the Commission doesn't have the power to suggest or to order parties to meet certain requirements.
1538 I have been informed that there is a government standard, federal government standard that is set by Treasury Board Secretariat and it is the CLF‑2.0 standard that in fact I announced this morning the CRTC will be adhering to by the end of the year.
1539 So if I can ask you, first of all, am I incorrect in saying that there is a policy by the federal government set up by Treasury Board or not? Maybe you have more information than I do.
1540 Second, what were you suggesting when you are suggesting that the Commission doesn't have the power?
1541 MR. O'FARRELL: Well, let me first start off by saying that that particular response, although it was included in the CanWest, I think the second response interrogatories, was actually submitted by a number of broadcasters. In fact, it was a similar if not the exact same response that was provided by a number of broadcasters.
1542 On this panel are people I think in a better place than I am to discuss that particular response.
1543 THE CHAIRPERSON: Who are you thinking of?
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
1544 MR. MEDLINE: I'll go next door to Susan Wheeler.
1545 MS WHEELER: I do have a copy of the Treasury Board standards, but I do note that it applies to institutions listed in Schedules I and II of the Financial Administration Act. It goes on to list certain acts, Privacy Act, Access to Information, Official Languages, and so on.
1546 So obviously there is some work that has already been done by federal institutions to apply standards to federal agencies and departments. Whether they are relevant to a broadcasting environment is another question.
1547 Obviously we know that the main challenge with complying with the W3C standard is the audio and video content that is on our website that requires that the audio have a text description that accompanies it or that the video have a described element to it as well.
1548 That certainly is where the costs are heavy and also the dynamic nature of the content, and its constantly changing nature also comes into play in terms of being able to constantly comply with that type of a standard.
1549 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do any of you have any order of magnitude as to what it would cost for an average broadcaster who has an average website today to have to comply?
1550 MR. O'FARRELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have an answer to that question, but we have a question for the question, and that would be: Why would the Commission at this stage in this process, when it has a new media hearing in the foreseeable future, chartered we assume on the basis of a review of certain activities that relate to the Commission's stated jurisdiction ‑‑ why would it in the context of this proceeding, when it has an exemption order on new media, be interested in exploring topics that deal with platforms that are used or not used within the area that is subject to the exemption?
1551 We didn't come equipped for that discussion and frankly we don't think that if the new media exemption order is maintained, that unless the Commission decides that where it does exempt services it will nonetheless expect players who are exempted from the jurisdiction of the Commission to comply with requests for information or disclosure of information or whatever information the Commission may want to engage in that kind of discussion.
1552 It's as if ‑‑ and I'm trying to be helpful here. We are puzzled by that.
1553 We are puzzled because (a) there is this new media hearing coming, (a); and (b) we stand here today in the context of this accessibility proceeding where a discussion on accessibility would lead to a discussion on elements of a platform and costing or other technical matters that relate to the platform that are component parts of an environment that has been exempted from the Commission's jurisdiction by its new media exemption order.
1554 So we are a little puzzled by that.
1555 MR. THOMSON: In addition to that, if I may add, a number of the W3C guidelines, if not most of them, deal with textual information and how it's presented on a website.
1556 Our understanding is that is in essence alphanumeric textual type of information that is outside the Commission's jurisdiction because it is not broadcasting.
1557 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we are looking at the issue of broadcasting, and I guess I take exception to what you are saying, Mr. O'Farrell, because this is not an issue of whether it is a broadcasting service or not. This is an issue of communications and access for accessibility people, for those people that don't have services today and how they go about getting them.
1558 So I don't necessarily see the relationship directly with the new media proceeding. The new media proceeding will proceed on its path.
1559 I think what we're looking at here is how can people with disabilities make use of the information that resides on the websites, not necessarily programming over the website, although there have been some questions raised here by some of the Commissioners, and rightly so, with regard to the change of content.
1560 If there is closed captioning, for example, coming down linear broadcasting and it is moving into the Internet, is there implications or operational issues associated with removing the closed content or adding the closed content on.
1561 I think those were the questions that are pertinent in this environment, as is the question about what would it take to make the website available for the purpose of recognizing what is closed captioned, what has described video, be it on CTV, be it on Rogers, be it on CanWest Global.
1562 So it's from that context I think you are hearing some of the questions from the Commission.
1563 MR. O'FARRELL: Thank you for clarifying that.
1564 This question or this suggestion that we are puzzled is submitted respectfully because, frankly, the question for us is whatever operates or whatever occupies a place and a space within that new exemption order, notwithstanding who it is operated by, is enveloped by the exemption order. And therefore we wonder how we can be helpful to the process when there are many other players who have much more needy ‑‑ well, perhaps needy is the wrong word. But there are many other players that are operating within that new exemption order where providing services over which there is much greater concern for the accessibility, and I'm thinking of other federally regulated areas such as banks, such as airlines or others who would be, I would think, in a position to equally participate in the process to say here is what we are making available in the way of accessibility measures in this exemption order envelope that would probably have a lot more bearing on the needs of the accessible community than what is being served, with all due respect, to those communities by way of the websites that are operated directly or indirectly by companies who otherwise also have broadcasting licences.
1565 My final point is, not to be difficult about this, but it is just to understand where all of this goes.
1566 I think that the answer that Ms Wheeler was providing earlier suggests that things are going in the right direction in any event. How they are actually ending up there by way of either just trying to do what needs to be done to be relevant to the audience that you want to serve, be it an exempt category or non‑exempt category, is the business broadcasters have been involved in for decades and decades, which is trying to make their services whatever they are as resonant, pertinent and accessible to the audience that they are trying to reach.
1567 But this whole discussion about what happens in the space which is now subject to an exemption order and the technical parameters or specifications or the cost attached to that remains still, for me, a very puzzling question that we would be having.
1568 I take your point about the new media order and I would just park that. It was really on the question of how do we get at this in a meaningful way within the purview of this process and this Commission at this time.
1569 THE CHAIRPERSON: I still didn't get an answer to my question.
1570 MR. O'FARRELL: Well, it's a question to a question frankly.
1571 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
1572 MS WHEELER: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to address one of your earlier questions about whether it is possible to take the linear broadcast that contains the closed captioning and simply put it onto the website.
1573 We have done some investigation into that and that is not the case.
1574 For those video players that can support closed captioning ‑‑ and that is very new technology ‑‑ it isn't a matter of just taking the linear and passing it to the video player online. It actually requires captioning it again and that does require additional resources, both human and financial resources, to essentially tailor the closed captioning to the smaller screen and also have that inserted in a separate data stream.
1575 So there are additional costs and it's not as simple as taking a program and putting it online.
1576 MR. MEDLINE: It actually would require ‑‑ I asked my own guys, and it would actually require a completely different workflow and almost double the production just to get it on there.
1577 Actually, you know, Glenn has addressed the big overall point and I think that's well taken. I just wanted to add, I think part of the confusion is not just why is it before the CRTC, but also the fact that many broadcasters, many companies are doing a lot of work in this area right now, whether it is with the W3C or a partial or the whole thing or in there own ways.
1578 I know that in preparation for this, I asked my digital media group to show me what they are doing, what kind of documentation, and I can't make heads or tails of it. It is inaccessible to me. It's a very confusing document.
1579 But tons of work is going on in all our places at various levels to make sure that ‑‑ either font resizing or colour contrasts or content placement or any number of other things that are going on.
1580 I don't know if that provides any extra illustrative examples, but that kind of stuff.
1581 THE CHAIRPERSON: It does.
1582 Mr. O'Farrell, can I just ask you whether ‑‑ is this something that you undertake to provide us with, just the status of each of your member's website evolutionary plans?
1583 I don't want the detailed plans, but where are they on the curve towards compliance with W3C standards?
1584 Is that something you can poll your members on and send us something at some point?
1585 MR. O'FARRELL: I think I'm being told that information may already be on the record by way of the interrogatories.
1586 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, in a tabular format? Someone has seen it over there?
1587 MR. THOMSON: In the course of the Commission questions to the various stakeholders one of the questions to broadcasters, as well as to other parties, was to explore to what extent they have made their websites compliant with the W3C guidelines, and so those answers are on the record, Mr. Chairman.
1588 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I think I saw those and they all different spins and different directions for each one of them and you can't sort of put it together in one table, which is why I was hoping, if I asked you folks, you could sort of take all that and put it onto one concise matrix, as you are excellent in doing, and simplifying a lot of these things, as well.
1589 MR. THOMSON: I'm not sure that we can simplify an answer to that particular question given that all the websites are so different from each other and they are at all very different stages in their evolution.
1590 THE CHAIRPERSON: But some of them are at stage one, or whatever they call it, CLF 1.0, some are at 2.0, some are not even at 1.0. It just would be nice to sort of see on one page where they all are in a high level, if that's possible. If you tell me it's not, then....
1591 MR. O'FARRELL: I think that the best I could say, in response to your question directly, is we will consult our members. And if there is an exercise that we feel that we can conduct that would be useful in providing you a response to the question you have raised, we will do so. And if we feel that there is no such exercise that we could conduct that would be useful, we will say so.
1592 But to me ‑‑ I just go back to this question ‑‑ even with such a matrix, what does it leave us with, in terms of where the Commission is going, or what is this whole purview that the Commission is taking on this issue that relates to the websites of certain players who operate under the exemptions orders, whereas all other players ‑‑ and I'm not talking about all other players at large, let's talk about federally regulated players ‑‑ who would not be providing matrixes for their industries or their sectors as to their compliance or state of evolution or WCF 1.0, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, where does that leave us, what is the indication that we should be drawing from that, and this is where I make the connection back to the new media hearing coming up in the not‑too‑distant future, what are we to understand from the Commission's disposition on this that is indicative of where the Commission is going?
1593 THE CHAIRPERSON: I can answer that question. Absolutely nothing. There's no correlation between the new media hearing and some of the questions being asked now, from the perspective of accessibility and accessed by those people with disabilities.
1594 MR. O'FARRELL: Okay. And what do we understand as to the Commission's desire to have information, in matrix form or otherwise, for websites that relate to players who also may own broadcasting licences but it's omission to act on websites and providing matrix for sectors that are regulated by the federal government who are not being asked to provide that information? Is there anything we should make of that?
1595 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, other than parties have come before us and filed evidence and submissions asking about their ability or inability to gather information, which is normally put on your websites as we move into this new age, and all we are trying to find out is how readily accessible is some of that for people with disabilities and to what extent has the industry stepped up already. And many of you already have, it's just important, from our perspective, to understand where the puts and takes are.
1596 If this moving on its own pace, then great. If it's not, then the question will be raised: is there a need for us to do anything one way or the other or to watch it and let market forces take effect?
1597 And if CTV has got a phenomenal website where people with disabilities can get on and find out what they can and can't watch and Global does not, then maybe that's where the market goes, as well. I don't know. But all we are saying is let's get the information first and then decide what we do with it later, if it's available. And if it's already been filed and we have got it in a different format, then we will take a look at it ourselves.
1598 MR. O'FARRELL: But the accessibility of consumers to access Porter's website or Air Canada's website is of no interest to you?
1599 THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't regulate those entities.
1600 MR. O'FARRELL: That's my point.
1601 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Those are my questions. I know some of the commissioners have some questions, so we will start off at the far right with Commissioner Duncan.
1602 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1603 I would like to go back to discuss the RAAQ's proposal. First of all, you can probably remind me when the 4‑hour DV rule was put in place. I understand almost everybody is now in compliance with that. Is it a few years ago?
1604 MR. THOMSON: In 2001, with the last licence renewals, and then following for specialty services, as required.
1605 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. And that four hours is being achieved pretty much at this point and so I would like to discuss how we can go forward.
1606 I think everybody sort of knee‑jerked or overreacted to the 28 hours. I think the 28 hours was proposed as a year seven scenario. So I would like to know how we could get along the line ‑‑ I mean, that's 2001, this proposal was taking us out another seven years from now, so, I mean, this is a long period of time.
1607 I'm just wondering, I'm interested in your answer, how we might get there. And I have a couple of suggestions, but I will let you just answer. Maybe not even to 28. I'm asking you how you would see it ramping up and what would be a reasonable approach.
1608 MR. O'FARRELL: I think it's a fair question and I think the answer is: the best answer can only be provided to you by those groups you will have in front of you when their full financial plans are laid out in ample detail over the course of seven years of a proposed new licence term and where you will have to make some determinations about where the resources are best applied in fulfilling the multiple goals and objectives of the Broadcasting Act, including the accessibility issues that we have discussed here today.
1609 And I would be speaking out of turn to suggest that we have any specific consensual position at this point in time because, as we have indicated ‑‑ and I think it's important to come back to that ‑‑ each corporate group, while they operate broadcasting services, they operate different broadcasting services, with different natures of services, which I think have been described a fair amount here today to show how particular one basket of assets would be as opposed to another and how that would impact on their ability to carry it out, in whole or in part.
1610 In fact, you may well find that in certain groups they will be proposing different levels, as it applies to the realities of their different types of programming services, because they don't all respond in the same way.
1611 But I think it's back to what David Goldstein was saying earlier, which is the licence renewal is the opportunity when all of those issues are on the table and where choices have to be made about where the priorities stand going forward.
1612 MR. MEDLINE: Can I add to that, Commissioner ‑‑
1613 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Sure.
1614 MR. MEDLINE: ‑‑ because where do we go forward is an excellent question. There has been a significant change since 2001 when those four hours were put in place for most over‑the‑air broadcasters, and that is the accessible channel. That is a massive change to the system. It's coming in less than a month. It is 168 hours of described video per week, 8,700 per year in the English language, and it's widely distributed. It's a digital 91H service, so it's widely distributed throughout Canada. That was a huge part of the solution.
1615 And I'm just talking about the quantity, not the promotion issues of described video, which have also been raised by a number of intervenors in this process. So the Commission and the system itself has taken a quantum leap forward when it comes to described video since 2001.
1616 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: But counting the accessibility channel, I guess we would agree with that.
1617 I'm just wondering, though, and it's rather difficult, we do have some broadcasters represented here, would you agree with the principle that if four years was set out in 2001, it's reasonable over the next seven years it might increase as principal?
1618 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I think we have to take a look at what the world looked like in the year 2000, when the Commission last examined it. The decision came in 2001, but 2000 the PBITs for the over‑the‑air television industry were 13.8 percent.
1619 Subsequent to 2000, there's probably at least 60, if not 70, specialty services and digital specialty services that have been licensed and launched since then, which, by the way, has its own implication for these and other issues. Whether it's Canadian programming or described video, you know, we are looking at RIS, for example, that has 100 hours a year, the Comedy Network, which is doing two hours a week. Like, that has incremental value to the system, as well.
1620 So I think you are going to have to balance what the world looked like in the year 2000. And progress isn't necessarily gauged through what one particular sector is going to be able to contribute. I would venture that if you did a straight‑line analysis, the fact that the OTA sector has gone from a PBIT of 13.8 to 5 ‑‑ and I would put a big caveat next to the 5 because those are numbers filed last year, before the economic crisis ‑‑ the returns are going to look much different when we file in November.
1621 So, again, I think the quantum issue is important and I think shared responsibility across the system is important, as well.
1622 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I think, Mr. Goldstein, when I look at you, I don't just see over‑the‑air, so...I'm thinking broader than that.
1623 Let me just make two points, then. Maybe as a means of increasing this number, what if genre limitations were removed or broadened so you could pick from more categories? What if captioning bought on U.S. programs, that obviously we are going to see an increase in, or we expect we will see an increase in, what if those were factored into the 28 hours, would you still then ‑‑ it doesn't even have to be 28, would that still be a problem?
1624 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I guess two issues. First of all is practicality and second of all is cost. The practicality issue, 28 hours, again, I can't foresee ‑‑ I can't foresee ‑‑
1625 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Let me interrupt. Don't let's not get hung up on the 28. I'm just talking about an increase.
1626 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, no, but even 14, to Mr. Medline's point, I mean, that's three‑fold the commitment that we are looking at now.
1627 And I guess the question is if the practicality issue is what kinds of programming ‑‑ and I agree with what Mr. Medline said, maybe you could look at expanding the genre, but I think it comes to a practicality issue of we do a lot of sports and we do a lot of news. And specifically on news, very, very difficult to practically do described video.
1628 If I could share, I don't mean to take a lot of the Commission's time, but just a practical concern, W‑FIVE is an important news documentary show that CTV has had ‑‑ I think it's one of the longest running shows in Canadian history, Canadian private broadcasting history. We get the show delivered to us almost 24 hours before it goes to air. And, as my colleague from Astral explained, the process that you have to go through to described video, that's the closest we get to a new show that's described video.
1629 And that has to go by feed to Descriptive Video Works in Vancouver. It comes back, and I can tell you that when it gets back to master control, when we have to stripe in the third channel for DV, that's sometimes only a couple of hours before the show goes to air.
1630 So there's a practicality issue. And if we took of our Canadian programming and you took out news and sports, it's fine to open up the genre elsewhere, but there isn't a lot of other programming that exists.
1631 Variety, we have the same issue because it's mostly live programming.
1632 As far as the cost is concerned, again, the act talks about "where resources are available", and we are going to have a great discussion about this, I'm sure, when April rolls around, but Parliament, we believe, saw that working both ways. And so I think there's a shared‑responsibility issue.
1633 And it's true that the specialty industry is starting to take up part of these obligations or part of this, and, frankly, it's an area where, because you have more repeat programming, you have actually more shelf space for some of this work that has been described.
1634 Just to end, and I guess if we feel defensive about this it's because we actually, in our view, and I will speak specifically for CTV, we are doing a lot of this. I mean, I know four hours a week doesn't sound like a lot of programming, but across the CTV network for 2007‑08, it was over 1,700 hours of programming. For the A Channels, and we all understand the situation that the A Channels are in, they are still doing over 860 hours of this programming.
1635 Now, maybe we are just concerned that we are not getting enough credit for this. And, in fact, in looking at our discussions about how to allow audiences to better access this stuff, whether it's through electronic programming guides or whatnot, I think that's the first bridge that we have to overcome, because I think there is a fair amount of this programming in the system, but I think we need to be able to find the audience for it before we start thinking about what is the next level or the next incremental level that we have to achieve.
1636 MR. MEDLINE: Can I just add to that?
1637 You know, I have great passion for changing the genre rule. Again, I think it's a crazy rule. That said, it doesn't matter whether it's foreign that we would have to DV, Congress has not passed ‑‑ you know, that is not a done deal and it will be subject to challenges even if Congress does pass that. I know it was earlier stated.
1638 But whether it's foreign, whether it's another category, whether it's informal education or some other category or game show that we do, that still comes with an additional incremental cost. There are two separate issues: opening up the genres and incremental hours.
1639 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I appreciate the toss, as well.
1640 MR. O'FARRELL: May I take one question ‑‑
1641 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Certainly.
1642 MR. O'FARRELL: ‑‑ one line, because I think that what you are saying, and I can understand, if you look at the future, is it more possible? And, of course, any reasonable person would like to answer, of course, more is possible. But given the realities of where things are at now, as we see them, we may have to start thinking about how holding the line is a very good thing, and being able to hold the line and not diminish our performance on certain of these initiatives is indeed an accomplishment.
1643 That being said, I think that the only time you will ever have an enlightened answer to your question is when you have financial plans in front of you and when you can look at the plans that have been prepared, your own assessment of how real they are or the need to discuss some of the assumptions and, ultimately, the choices that are going to be made in the so‑called regulatory bargain going forward, about where the priorities are and where resources can be reasonably allocated.
1644 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. O'Farrell.
1645 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1646 THE CHAIRPERSON: I fear we are going to be burning out our support staff here so I'm hoping we can conclude in the next five to seven minutes.
1647 Don't stare at me that way!
1648 Commissioner Lamarre.
1649 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: I have just been put on notice.
1650 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
1651 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Okay.
1652 J'étais pour limiter mes questions au sous‑titrage, je vais essayer de le faire même s'il y a quelque chose qui m'a frappée dans vos réponses à la Conseillère Duncan. Alors, je vais y aller pour les questions faciles en premier.
1653 En réponse à une question au sujet du coût du sous‑titrage, Monsieur Medline, vous avez mentionné que ça variait de $165 à $300 de l'heure, et je n'ai pas compris, bon, selon la nature du programme, mais ça, est‑ce que c'est pour du sous‑titrage en direct ou c'est du sous‑titrage en différé?
1654 MR. MEDLINE: No, that would be arranged. It would include live and taped elements.
1655 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: And live is more likely to be at the upper end then?
1656 MR. MEDLINE: You know, it's funny, that would be logically the case. I think, though, because of the sheer volume of live materials that it all depends on your volume, your volume deals with your provider, if you are using a third‑party provider.
1657 COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Okay, point taken.
1658 Maintenant, il y a un aspect qu'on n'a pas encore touché et qui a été relevé par plusieurs intervenants, et c'est la question de l'arrêt brutal du sous‑titrage dans la transition entre la programmation principale et les pauses publicitaires.
1659 Est‑ce que c'est un élément qui a été étudié dans vos groupes de travail et est‑ce qu'on est prêt d'une solution à ce sujet‑là?
1660 M. SMITH : Alors, oui, ça été étudié dans le cadre des groupes de travail, particulièrement dans le cas du groupe de travail de langue anglaise. Je pense que Jonathan, CanWest a une approche particulière sur ce sujet‑là, sur laquelle il pourrait élaborer, mais juste pour vous dire, oui, ça été abordé.
1661 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Très bien.
1662 Et la question du sous‑titrage et publicité, est‑ce que ça aussi, ça été abordé? Parce que je comprends bien que la publicité vous est fournie par votre client, alors, on peut peut‑être laisser ça de côté. Mais vos auto‑publicités ‑‑ tous les réseaux font de l'auto‑publicité ‑‑ est‑ce que la question de sous‑titrage à cette publicité‑là a été abordée?
1663 M. SMITH : Encore une fois, ça été abordé dans le cadre des discussions des groupes de travail, mais je pense, Madame la Conseillère, que la rencontre des objectifs de la politique publique publiée l'année dernière sont déjà très, très exigeants, et, par conséquent, le focus des diffuseurs particulièrement portent sur le volume de programmation qu'ils doivent effectivement sous‑titrer.
1664 Ceci étant dit, ils ont abordé la question des auto‑promos et des publicités.
1665 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Maintenant, Monsieur Smith, je dois vous reprendre sur une mention que vous avez faite tout à l'heure. En parlant de RQST qui participe à votre groupe de travail, vous avez utilisé l'expression " le représentant des usagers. " Or, ce matin, le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive a mentionné que RQST ne parlait pas en son nom et était d'avis que RQST ne parlait pas non plus au nom des personnes ayant une déficience auditive, et ils ont ajouté qu'ils aimeraient être consultés dans le processus des groupes de travail.
1666 Alors, est‑ce que ce serait possible pour le groupe de travail francophone, à partir de ce stade‑ci, d'inclure le Centre québécois de la déficience auditive dans son équipe?
1667 M. SMITH : Je vais vous faire une réponse très brève. Je suis très heureux de votre question. C'est le moment pour moi de... to fall on my sword et de reconnaître que le Centre québécois de la déficience et monsieur Nolet auraient dû être inclus au sein du groupe de travail de langue française. De toute évidence, l'approche est d'avoir le plus de participation possible, qui peuvent amener le plus de points de vue possible pour faire avancer les choses.
1668 Alors, j'en prends l'entière responsabilité. Mon erreur. Ça va être corrigé immédiatement.
1669 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Smith.
1670 Et la dernière question, pour laisser le temps à mes collègues aussi de pouvoir en poser, et j'essaie de vous faire plaisir avec cette question‑là. Vous me direz si j'y arrive. Je veux vous parler de votre tableau à la page 8 de votre présentation.
1671 Je note que vous établissez la situation au Canada et, ensuite, dans quatre juridictions de common law anglophones et dans une juridiction de droit civil francophone.
1672 Est‑ce que ça serait possible pour vous à court terme de bonifier le tableau pour essayer d'obtenir de l'information sur d'autres juridictions francophones et peut‑être même possiblement sur des juridictions qui ont plus qu'une langue officielle?
1673 M. O'FARRELL : Ça nous ferait plaisir de le faire. La seule chose qui risque de manquer, c'est la dimension du système de droit civil ou autrement qui sera peut‑être absent du tableau. Mais oui, on cherchera, effectivement, à agrandir l'échantillonnage et puis le soumettre.
1674 CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Je vous remercie.
1675 J'ai terminé, Monsieur le Président.
1676 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
1677 I think legal has one last question.
1678 MS LEHOUX: I will ask one question.
1679 Since we have 500 individual broadcasters in front of us, we need the following question to be answered, and you can answer by writing by the end of Friday, okay?
1680 Commissioner Denton already asked that question, but we need that on the record, and it is the following one: at what point would increases to DV requirements represent undue hardship for licensees, ending in costs, in terms of the percentage of spending on DV as compared to broadcasters overall spending on programming?
1681 Can you undertake to provide the answer on that?
1682 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can you clarify whether that's ‑‑
1683 MR. O'FARRELL: Excuse me just for a few minutes.
1684 I would like to state that I think that in fairness to the question, I have to object in principle to the question because you are asking these members to provide a response based on speculation.
1685 The speculation is what will the economic circumstances be when they file for licence renewal and I'm not sure that any of them can certify that today and I'm not sure that you would want to do develop any findings on that basis.
1686 I think that question is the question, amongst many others, that will have to be addressed at the time of licence renewals when you have their detailed financial plans.
1687 If these members are prepared to answer, notwithstanding the difficulty in ‑‑ and the other point that I think might be germane to this is you might end up with two different response as a result of changing circumstances.
1688 Over the course of the time required to file, you have asked that this question be answered for Friday. The answer that you may receive on Friday may have changed materially when the Commission receives the filings of the members for their licence renewal and it would make the exercise somewhat academic, if not useless.
1689 So on the basis of the objection, not to be obstructive, but on the basis of providing the Commission with, hopefully, helpful information, as opposed to less than helpful information, I'm not sure that we are helping the Commission by agreeing to respond to a question that may well not be particularly useful for this proceeding or for the ultimate proceeding where these decisions will be taken.
1690 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. O'Farrell, let me just throw in my thoughts here. I'm not a lawyer, but this is a quasi‑judicial proceeding and panel and hearing, and as a result of that we have got to make a decision based on the facts before us at the time of this hearing. And so I think what counsel is asking for is the information in order to make as informed a decision as we can with information on the public record at the time of the proceeding.
1691 Certainly things may change, and as things change a lot of things change as well, but if we have to make a decision before us right now, we are basically saying there is some information that is required. And if the CAB or the members choose not to provide it, then that's your choice, but we will go with what we have when we adjudicate.
1692 MR. O'FARRELL: I understand the nature of the tribunal, Mr. Chairman, and we fundamentally respect the Commission's role and the Commission's authority to do what it has to do; however, I think that it's also important that we expose and express our views when we think that the discussion or the dialogue or the questions are not necessarily in the public interest. That was the reason that I was suggesting the objection that I have just made, number one.
1693 Number two is the question, as raised, would put these members at somewhat of a prejudicial disadvantage to other members who are not participating on this panel and who have an equally valid or valuable insight into the question that is being posed. You have some members, not all members, that's the number two.
1694 Number three, in fairness, it sounds a little bit late in the day, frankly, to be coming, this panel, with a question that is so germane to your decision when, if that was the critical linchpin for a decision to be made, you have put interrogatories out to which responses have been provided. And furthermore, if there was something missing in the responses to the interrogatories provided, there was an opportunity prior to now to seek additional information to assist you.
1695 So on that basis, I would suggest to you that maybe we want to think this through to give you the best information you can, based on what's really useful to you.
1696 MS LEHOUX: Maybe to answer on one thing is that for the other individual broadcasters we will be sending out the same question next week to them, those that are not in front of us. And we hear you, but what you have got to understand is that we need that information on the record. If you decide not to provide it, that's your choice.
1697 MR. O'FARRELL: Well, my point remains it's a little bit late, frankly, to be making this type of a request and ascribing to it the definitive determining value that you seem to ascribe to it when interrogatories were made, responses to interrogatories were provided and no further information was sought.
1698 But given the way the question was raised and the explanation that counsel has provided, our members will take the decisions that need to be taken accordingly and we will advise you in due course.
1699 MS WHEELER: Just to clarify, is it a percentage of overall program expenditure or Canadian program expenditure?
1700 MS LEHOUX: Both, if possible.
1701 MR. O'FARRELL: Could you put that question in writing, Madam Lehoux?
1702 MS LEHOUX: Absolutely.
1703 MR. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
1704 MS LEHOUX: So for the individual members that I have in front of me, do you undertake to provide it by Friday.
1705 MS WHEELER: I can't undertake to provide it by Friday.
1706 MS LEHOUX: When could you provide it?
1707 MS WHEELER: I would have to consult with our operational people in order to be able to see how we would determine that.
1708 Again, I will also note that we run a third language programming service and certainly those costs are quite different.
1709 MR. MEDLINE: You know, it's never easy to disagree with counsel, but, you know, I just want to add a little bit of colour to what Glen said.
1710 At license renewal, we are going to paint a picture, at least CanWest is, and I'm sure other broadcasters, of what our business looks like, and your question involves undue hardship. We can't paint that picture of what undue hardship is by Friday or the week after. That's really what licence renewal is for. And it goes to the act, which says "as resources are available".
1711 So we are not trying to cause problems here. It's very difficult to say, yeah, eight hours won't cause hardship. Maybe it's four hours, okay? We can't do that without telling the full story.
1712 MS LEHOUX: We hear you. So we will wait for you by Friday to tell us when you can commit to provide the information that you can provide. At this point in time we will be writing the question, we will send out the question to the other members that are not in front of us today, and we will hand out the questions to you, too.
1713 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Goldstein, did you want to add something?
1714 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I guess this is, in my view, needlessly confrontational, when, in fact, we are destined to receive, at least the OTA operators, are destined to receive a letter from the Commission in the coming days inviting us to reapply for group licence renewal. And in that letter we understand will be certain questions, and quite likely one of those questions are going to pertain to our social benefits.
1715 And to take Mr. Medline's point one step further, in our view this is a policy proceeding and not a licensing proceeding, and while we understand and appreciate the Commission's desire to forge ahead with a policy framework on these particular issues, we question the justice in looking at a specific issue out of context.
1716 You know, we are not having a local television or a local programming proceeding, we are not having a priority programming proceeding, we are not having an independent production proceeding, we are having a proceeding, hopefully in the spring, that's going to deal with the balance of these issues in which we are, as broadcasters, able and willing to come forward with a full picture of all of these obligations.
1717 And so I'm not sure that looking at this in isolation, through some sort of licensing model, whether it's a programming obligation, is necessarily appropriate.
1718 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will draft up the wording, we will send it to you, you folks are free to deliberate and let us know when you can get back to us with whatever you want to get back to us with on the record.
1719 Madam Secretary, I think this concludes the day. Is there any follow‑up statements that you need to make at all?
1720 THE SECRETARY: Not at the moment. Thank you.
1721 We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.
‑‑‑ Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1820, to resume
on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 0900 / L'audience
est ajournée à 1820, pour reprendre le mardi
18 novembre 2008 à 0900
REPORTERS / STÉNOGRAPHES
____________________ ____________________
Johanne Morin Monique Mahoney
____________________ ____________________
Jean Desaulniers Fiona Potvin
____________________ ____________________
Sue Villeneuve Madeleine Matte
- Date modified: