Evidence of meeting #50 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was deregulation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre
You need a light and bigger print, right?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Yes, and they may be just voice-activated. That's the whole thing about this technology. Certain things are just never going to be big enough visually, so I'm just wondering if there are suggestions that we could look at in other jurisdictions to be able to help us and to assist with the disabled.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre
There is some stuff primarily out of the United States. Since they're our closest partner, I would recommend seriously looking at the Access Board and at setting up an independent agency such as the United States Access Board.
There are also those two statutes that I mentioned, section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, and section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The American government won't purchase any technology unless it's of high security and isn't accessible. They actually have a procurement policy that has had an enormous influence in the States.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, on that, there's also another protection part in the Americans with Disabilities Act. When you're concluding that remark, maybe you can highlight just how effective it is when government procurement policy actually takes the lead and is part of their public policy.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre
To be frank, I'm not too familiar with the American example, except that I have been to several international telecommunications conferences dealing with accessibility. Bar none, the fellow from Microsoft, the last national director for Microsoft, was saying that the most important thing in the United States has been section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, in terms of the requirement that the American government only procures, uses, and purchases equipment—and it's not only in telecommunications, because it's broader than telecom—that meets a very high level of standards. The Access Board is the group that's setting up the standards, and they're currently revising those standards. The current standards are book-thick.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I want to move on to a topic that hasn't been discussed too much. It was raised, and I'm sorry to whoever did raise. Very importantly, it is net neutrality.
Ms. Léger, you might have been the one who raised it. Net neutrality hasn't been discussed too much in the hearings, but it's probably one of the most important things that is going to happen in the telecommunications industry in the years to come. We've taken the position that the minister has to enforce it and that it has to be part of public policy in Canada.
Maybe I'll offer all witnesses the opportunity to comment on the impacts of net neutrality on the clients that you serve if we don't have that in our country across the board. Whoever wants to start can go right ahead.
4:50 p.m.
Spokeswoman, Quebec Coalition of Internet Service Providers
I can start.
Obviously, the neutrality of the Internet has been there since the beginning. This is what helped most of the consumers in researching new information--having access to the information they want when they want, from the source they want, and basing their opinions on multiple sources.
Leaving the power to the owner of the infrastructure to decide which information or which site or which type of information is accessible and which packet comes first then removes this freedom from every single end-user. So what we're saying is that it's very important to protect that.
4:50 p.m.
Staff Lawyer, British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Just briefly, Telus actually was the Internet provider for the union in a labour dispute. What they did was shut off the union's website. So it's very interesting what can be done by the Internet providers. Whether it's legal or not is another question.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
It's a great example. And that's one of the things that hasn't been talked about a lot here at the hearings, but it really affects even the whole set of principles by which the Internet is understood in our society. It then basically becomes, depending on what carrier you have, that they're going to allow access to speeds at different sites, or eliminate sites. It affects everything from new services and payments to video on demand and other types of technology. So it really becomes a serious factor in the major operations.
With regard to net neutrality, again, would you argue that the enforcement and overseeing of that...? I didn't mention this in the first round, but does the ombudsman office or consumer rights also include chapters on net neutrality and protecting consumers on that, so that it's actually enforced?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre
I just have a quick comment.
I like the ombudsman idea for individual complaints, but I'm not certain that the ombudsman idea in the report goes far enough to deal with systemic concerns. I think we still need, from the point of view of social regulation and net neutrality--those kinds of concerns--an oversight body that has power to make orders in a systemic way. It may not be economic regulation, and I think that's what the market forces stuff is, to try to get rid of the economic regulation, but we absolutely need a centralized social regulation body. I would put net neutrality in there perhaps, and not rely only on a complaints-driven ombudsman who has no power to make orders and determine policy.
4:55 p.m.
Spokeswoman, Quebec Coalition of Internet Service Providers
In our view, a very easy way to protect net neutrality is to recognize that the Internet itself is two components: you have a road, and you have what's riding on the road. The road itself, which is the infrastructure, is essential and shouldn't be controlled by anyone. Then it allows the flow of information freely. That's why the argument at the coalition is that it's an essential service. And if you recognize it's essential, it's easy to manage.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you.
I have one question. If we view access to essential services as a potential charter issue, what is the impact on your ability to defend the interests of the people you represent or their ability to defend their interests? What is the effect of the cancellation of or the government's decision to end the court challenges program?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre
What's the effect of the court challenges program?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Yes, the government's decision to end the court challenges program.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre
Well, it will have a big effect on litigants across the country, both from French-language point of view—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes, this is really stretching. We're doing a study on the deregulation of telecommunications.
