Reply of ARCH Disability Law Centre
to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Telecom and Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2021-69: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Accessibility Reporting Regulations

April 1, 2021

55 University Avenue, 15th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7
Phone: 416-482-8255 or 1-866-482-2724
TTY: 416-482-1254 or 1-866-482-2728
archgen@lao.on.ca 
www.archdisabilitylaw.ca
 @ARCHDisabilityLawCentre
@ARCHDisability

Submitted to:

Mr. Claude Doucet
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
Ottawa, ON KIA ON2

And to:

John Rae
thepenguin@rogers.com

Penny Leclair
Penny.leclair@rogers.com

Alliance for Equality of Blinds Canadians (EABC) / L’Alliance pour l’Égalité des Personnes Aveugles du Canada (AEBC)
info@blindcanadians.ca

Allarco Entertainment 2008 Inc.
mlewis@lbhmedialaw.com

Accessible Media Inc.
David.Errington@ami.ca

Rogers Communications Inc.
regulatory@rci.rogers.com

Independent Broadcast Group/Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants
jfortune@fortunelaw.ca

National Campus and Community Radio Association
barry@ncra.ca

Canadian Communication Systems Alliance (CCSA)
cedwards@ccsaonline.ca

Bell Canada
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

CNIB Foundation
alice.clark@cnib.ca

Canadian Association of Broadcasters /Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs (CAB / ACR)
kdesjardins@cab-acr.ca

Canadian Association of the Deaf-Association des Sourds du Canada (CAD-ASC), Deaf Wireless Canada Consultative Committee-Comité pour les Services Sans fil des Sourds du Canada (DWCC-CSSSC), and Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind (CNSDB) [collectively, CAD-ASC et al.]
wissam@cad.ca

Tbaytel
laura.foulds@tbaytel.com

Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC)
cmac@riseup.net

Media Access Canada
mac@mediac.ca

Council of Canadians with Disabilities
jewelles@ccdonline.ca

Blue Ant Media Inc.
astrid.zimmer@blueantmedia.com

Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec (COPHAN)
jerome.plante@cophan.org

Shaw Communications Inc.
regulatory@sjrb.ca 

TELUS Communications Inc
leena.khawaja@telus.com 

Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA)
ugrant@cwta.ca 

Distributel Communications Limited
christopher.hickey@distributel.ca 

Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA)
jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca

TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
regulatory@teksavvy.ca
 
Deafness Advocacy Association Nova Scotia (DAANS), Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf (NLAD) and Ontario Association of the Deaf (OAD), [collectively, DHH Coalition] 
richmanelliott@gmail.com 

Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC)
geoff.white@cnoc.ca 

Barrier Free Canada / Canada sans Barrières
barrierfreecanada@gmail.com / donnajodhan@sterlingcreations.ca 

The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC)
execdir@frpc.net 

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
ARCH’s Reply to the Submissions of Interveners
A.	ARCH Opposes Expanded Exemptions for Regulated Entities
B.	Requests for Alternate Formats and Feedback Should Be Permitted Through Any Means that the Regulated Entity Communicates with the Public
C.	Accessibility Plans Should be Updated Every Three Years
D.	If the CRTC Maintains the Deadlines for Initial Accessibility Plans in the Draft Regulations, Feedback Processes Should be Created One Year in Advance

Executive Summary
1.	ARCH provides this reply to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission pursuant to its intervention in the proceeding, CRTC 2021-69, Call for Comments – The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Accessibility Reporting Regulations. 
2.	In this reply, ARCH opposes certain submissions advanced by Allarco Entertainment 2008 Inc. (“Allarco”), Bell Canada and its affiliates (“Bell Canada”), Blue Ant Media Inc. (“Blue Ant”), Canadian Communication Systems Alliance (“CCSA”), Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (“CWTA”), Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (“ITPA”), National Campus and Community Radio Association/ l’Association nationale des radios étudiantes et communautaires (“NCRA/ANREC”), Rogers Communications Inc. (“Rogers”), Shaw Communications Inc. on behalf of Freedom Mobile Inc., Shaw Cablesystems G.P., Star Choice Television Network Incorporated, Shaw Cablesystems Limited and Shaw Cablesystems (VCI) Limited (“Shaw”), Tbaytel, and TELUS Communications Inc (“TELUS”). 
3.	ARCH provides the following recommendations to the CRTC in response:

a.	In its submission dated March 22, 2021, ARCH encouraged the CRTC to create more tailored exemptions for regulated entities with less than 10 employees and who are subject to the reseller registration exemption. ARCH urges the CRTC not to expand these exemptions further.

b.	The CRTC should not permit regulated entities to restrict how persons with disabilities make requests for alternate formats or provide feedback. The current language in the draft regulations, setting out that these requests may be made “through any means by which the regulated [broadcasting or telecommunications] entity communicates with the public” is accessible, consistent with universal design, and accords with the objectives of the Accessible Canada Act (ACA).

c.	Accessibility plans should be updated every three years. TELUS has not provided the CRTC with a compelling reason to select a longer timeframe than the time period specified by Parliament in the ACA. 

d.	If the CRTC maintains the timeframes to complete initial accessibility plans outlined in the draft regulations, it is important that feedback processes be required a year before that date. As the CRTC explained in its Call for Comments, the purpose of the feedback process is not simply to inform accessibility plans. It is also meant to address barriers that are identified by persons with disabilities. Since some regulated entities may not have to complete their initial accessibility plans for years, it is important that the feedback process is put in place sooner to promote barrier removal without delay.

ARCH’s Reply to the Submissions of Interveners
A.	ARCH Opposes Expanded Exemptions for Regulated Entities
4.	In its submission dated March 22, 2021, ARCH encouraged the CRTC to create more tailored exemptions for regulated entities with less than 10 employees and who are subject to the reseller registration exemption. These exemptions should be based on evidence of undue hardship that these regulated entities are likely to experience. Regulatory exemptions to accessibility requirements have the unintended consequence of removing incentives for regulated entities to overcome barriers to accessibility. ARCH therefore disagrees with submissions by Allarco, the CCSA, the ITPA, and Blue Ant that the exemptions outlined by the CRTC for smaller regulated entities should be expanded, with no obligations placed on the entities in these categories. 
5.	ARCH also submits that the CRTC should not rely on statements, such as the submission by NCRA/ANREC, that smaller broadcasters “may use the regulations as a roadmap to improve their accessibility even though they will not be subject to reporting requirements” as justification for maintaining the current blanket exemptions or for enlarging them. While some small broadcasters and telecommunications providers may attempt to follow the regulations in good faith, good intentions of some regulated entities will not be sufficient to achieve the ACA’s purpose of a barrier free Canada by 2040. 
B.	Requests for Alternate Formats and Feedback Should Be Permitted Through Any Means that the Regulated Entity Communicates with the Public
6.	ARCH opposes the submissions of Bell Canada, CWTA, Rogers, and Tbaytel that the CRTC should allow regulated entities to restrict how members of the public may request alternate formats of accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of the feedback process, or provide feedback through the feedback process. ARCH also opposes Shaw’s submission in this regard with respect to giving feedback through the feedback process only.
7.	While Bell Canada, the CWTA, Rogers, and Shaw submit that it may be difficult to monitor all communication channels with the public, this is a responsibility that regulated entities must take on when they create these communication channels in the first place. These interveners have not provided sufficient evidence of undue hardship to justify a change to the wording of the CRTC’s draft regulation. For example, it would not be unreasonable for these interveners to create procedures to relay the feedback given through each of these communications channels to the designated person.
8.	Moreover, it is crucial for persons with disabilities to make requests for alternate formats or give feedback in a way that is accessible to them. Imposing the additional step of requiring persons with disabilities to find out how to request alternate formats or give feedback creates additional, unnecessary barriers. 
9.	Restricting how persons with disabilities are permitted to make requests for alternate formats or give feedback is also inconsistent with universal design. Universal design aims to ensure that a building, space, technology or service being designed is usable by the greatest number of persons possible. Typically applied to the built environment, architecture, and information and communication technologies, the concept of universal design can also be applied to the design of systems and services. Universal design in the context of the draft regulations would require multiple modes of communication to request alternate formats or give feedback to accord with the diverse needs and circumstances of persons with disabilities.
10.	Bell Canada’s submission that the regulated entities be permitted to set out designated methods of communication in accessibility plans is particularly concerning. If this accessibility plan is not already in an accessible format, it would be impossible for some persons with disabilities to know which methods of communications Bell Canada has designated. This will mean that a person with a disability may have no information about where to start making inquiries, they may have to contact the regulated entity in a variety of different ways before receiving an answer, and may eventually give up before receiving an accessible format or giving feedback at all. This significantly undermines the requirement to provide alternate formats and create accessible feedback processes. 
11.	Shaw makes the submission that it may intend to “centralize its accessibility feedback process through its website”. If the draft regulations permit Shaw to do this, this may create barriers for persons with disabilities who do not have access to a computer or to the Internet. It is important that multiple modes of communication be available, such that persons with disabilities can utilize the method that is accessible for them.
C.	Accessibility Plans Should be Updated Every Three Years 
12.	ARCH submits that the CRTC should not amend the draft regulations consistent with TELUS’s request that accessibility plans be updated every five years. While the ACA gives the CRTC the power to designate an alternate timeframe, it provides three years as the default interval to create an updated accessibility plan at s 42(2) and s 51(2). TELUS has not provided a compelling reason for the CRTC to choose a different timeframe from the one set out by Parliament.
13.	Rather, TELUS’s argument referring to “minimal or insignificant updates every three (3) years because there might be no new processes or practices implemented” demonstrates exactly why a three-year reporting cycle is important. A three-year interval between accessibility plans is important to ensure that regulated entities are transparent and accountable with respect to the goals that they set out in their accessibility plans. If little progress has been made in three years, persons with disabilities and the Canadian public should know why. As well, a three-year reporting cycle may motivate regulated entities to remove barriers without delay, consistent with section 5.2 of the ACA, so that they are able to demonstrate that significant progress has been achieved in that time.
D.	If the CRTC Maintains the Deadlines for Initial Accessibility Plans in the Draft Regulations, Feedback Processes Should be Created One Year in Advance
14.	ARCH opposes the submissions of CWTA, Rogers, and Tbaytel that the deadline for the description of a regulated entity’s feedback process should be postponed to correspond to the deadline for its initial accessibility plan. If the CRTC maintains the current deadlines for initial accessibility plans outlined in the draft regulations, the deadline for the feedback process should be a year in advance of those dates.
15.	As the CRTC explained in its Call for Comments, the purpose of the feedback process is not simply to inform accessibility plans. It is also meant to address barriers that are identified by persons with disabilities. Consistent with section 5.2 of the ACA, it is important for persons with disabilities to have an avenue to identify barriers and ask regulated entities to address them earlier than the deadlines for initial accessibility plans, some of which are years in the future. 
16.	The CRTC should not accept Tbaytel’s submission that consultations on initial accessibility plans by regulated entities mean that it is unnecessary to put a feedback process in place earlier. The ACA clearly envisions that regulated entities engage in consultations regarding their accessibility plans and have a separate feedback process. These two elements of the ACA were intended to operate in parallel. These processes, while related, have different goals and may be accessed by different persons with disabilities for different reasons. 
17.	Should the CRTC create earlier deadlines for initial accessibility plans, consistent with ARCH’s submission dated March 22, 2021, it may be less feasible for feedback processes to be put in place one year in advance of those earlier deadlines. However, if the CRTC decides not to amend the deadlines for accessibility plans, regulated entities should create feedback processes one year in advance.

***End of document***