House of Commons Hansard #201 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was broadcasting.
Pest Control Products ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should (a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired; (b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning; (c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed-captioning.
Madam Speaker, first, I thank my colleague from Laurentides for her support in bringing forward this motion.
Indeed, I am very pleased to rise today to debate the important issue of defending the deaf and hearing impaired. This is a problem that has been dear to my heart for many years and that I have raised several times here in the House.
The purpose of motion before the House is to implement various measures to correct a very complex situation that directly affect the daily lives of millions of people.
In Canada, more than 3 million people, including 750,000 in Quebec, have a hearing problem. Hearing impairment is the handicap that is suffered by the greatest number of people and the worst thing is that this handicap is invisible.
One person in ten now suffers from this problem. In the face of alarming figures like these, we cannot remain indifferent. And as the population continues to age, matters will only grow worse.
More than ever, we must address this phenomenon and take tangible action. Last week, as part of Hearing Month, I organized a press conference to draw attention to the magnitude of the problem. I had the pleasure of sharing the podium with Richard McNicoll, general manager of the Regroupement québécois pour le sous-titrage.
This organization, which is devoted to the defence of closed-captioning, is doing a remarkable job. Mr. McNicoll and his team are extensively involved in efforts to move things forward. It is now up to the federal government to get involved as well and to ensure that tangible progress is made for the deaf and hearing impaired.
The government has certainly had plenty of opportunities. In the past, we suggested a number of possible solutions. Despite two motions passed unanimously in the House, these motions have not resulted in any legislation or action.
As the House will recall, in May 1999, parliamentarians ruled unanimously in favour of a motion recognizing the importance for the public and private sectors to provide deaf and hard-of-hearing persons with the tools required for them to take their place in the world.
On May 30, 2001, parliamentarians again gave their unanimous consent for a motion which I introduced through the adoption of the Report on the Broadcasting and Availability of the Debates and Proceedings of Parliament in Both Official Languages.
This report recommended closed-captioning in French of oral question period in the House of Commons, as is already done in English. A year will soon have passed and there is still no closed-captioning in French. Yet there are 750,000 Quebecers, most of them francophones, who are not entitled to the same service.
It is completely inconceivable that in a country which claims to respect its two official languages, and worse still, in parliament, that it is taking so long to get closed-captioning in French.
This shows the magnitude of the problem. It also shows that, despite the unanimity of parliamentarians, the federal government has still done nothing.
But there is certainly no lack of suggestions. This is the purpose of my motion, which calls on the government to take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired. One such measure is closed-captioning.
To that end, I urge the federal government to draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed-captioning.
Is it necessary to repeat that television plays a major role in the lives of a great many people who are deaf or hearing impaired? For some of them, it is the only means of communication; not everyone can afford a computer and access to Internet.
Depriving these people of this source of information and entertainment can isolate them, and I am not even talking about the safety aspect of the issue. Since they cannot listen to the radio, television remains their only source of real time information.
These are only a few examples showing the complex differences between someone who can hear and someone who cannot. I remain optimistic in spite of everything. My goal is to obtain full 100% closed captioning of all television broadcasts, both in French and in English, for the deaf and the hearing impaired.
There is another problem with French programming. The CRTC requires that English television channels provide closed captioning for their programs but does not impose the same requirement on French television.
Therefore, the French speaking deaf and hearing impaired have access to a mere 40% of the SRC programs whereas the English speaking public in the same situation has access to 90% to 100% of the programs being shown on TV. This is the type of justice and equity we get from the federal government. Those are highly troubling statistics.
In a country which claims to respect both official languages, it is unthinkable that French closed captioning should be so far behind closed captioning for English programs. In my opinion, some legislation is required; we need measures to solve once and for all that complex problem of access to communications for these three million individuals and 750,000 in Quebec. The federal government can easily and quickly enact legislation to solve that problem.
But this is only a start. It is only one way to truly promote the integration of the deaf and the hearing impaired in our society.
We have to beyond that, and another important element of my motion refers to the promotion of research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning, particularly through a real funding program. This would help make technology more available and affordable. For example, the Centre de la recherche informatique de Montréal has launched a research program on speech recognition. This project will allow live closed captioning. The Quebec government has offered financial assistance, but to this date, the federal government has not shown any interest in supporting this research project.
It is not as though the government did not have the means to do so. This would really not be much compared to the huge surpluses in the federal budgets year after year.
In conclusion, I call upon my colleagues to support my motion so that we can send the government a clear and unequivocal message that the will expressed by parliamentarians has to be translated into government policies.
In supporting this motion, I ask the federal government to be consistent and to turn commitments into action. The government can do something, and more than three million people are counting on it.
The fight will not be over until these three million Canadians have access to policies ensuring their complete integration into our society. But more than anything else, the fight will not be over until the federal government understands that closed captioning is not a privilege but rather a right, and that it allows the deaf and the hearing impaired to read what others hear.
This situation is urgent. The will is one thing, but without action, we are going nowhere. I therefore call upon my colleagues to support this motion.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my support of the motion. I wish to commend my colleague for introducing it. I also wish to commend the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who worked diligently on encouraging as many of her colleagues to support this important initiative. The parliamentary secretary has asked me whether or not I would support the motion. She encouraged me to do so, and I am willing to support it.
The motion would support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired and set up a fund to research and develop the technologies required to assist in this endeavour. The government is already committed to ensure that all Canadians have access to our broadcasting system.
Television has become an integral part of our lives and one of the primary sources of information for all Canadians. Can members imagine seeing an important event on television but not being able to hear what was being said or reported, or hearing the newscast or program but not seeing the visual images? This was the world for many hearing and visually impaired Canadians until the discovery of closed captioning and voice print.
What is closed captioning and how does it work?. Closed captioning translates the audio portion of a television program into subtitles, also known as captions. These captions usually appear at the bottom of the television screen and generally scroll in unison with the program being viewed. To view closed captioning the viewer requires a caption decoder chip in the television set or a separate decoder.
Let us look at the National Broadcasting Reading Service and La Magnétothèque. They are providers of services for the visually impaired, also known as voice print. Voice print is provided by the National Broadcasting Reading Service and La Magnétothèque via a newspaper reading service 24 hours a day, along with other programming to assist persons who are blind, visually impaired or print handicapped. Generally voice print is delivered over a secondary audio programming service, SAP.
How do we ensure the growth of these important services? We do so as we implement a variety of tools to ensure that our hearing and visually impaired citizens have access to our diverse stories. It only makes sense that as the dependence on television increases so should our resolve to provide the hearing and visually impaired with access based services.
An example of this resolve is included in subsection 3(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act which states:
programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;
To this end the Government of Canada has undertaken many initiatives to ensure that this service continues to grow in both official languages. Currently closed captioning is a mandatory requirement to obtain funding from the Canadian television fund.
The CRTC, the body which regulates our broadcast airwaves, makes it a requirement to provide these services and has set out clear goals that Canadian broadcasters are expected to meet. For example, major broadcasters such as CBC, CTV and Global must caption at least 90% of all programming during the broadcast day as well as local news, including live segments.
Medium size broadcasters and smaller stations are encouraged to meet the same standard while specialty services must also work toward that 90% goal.
Challenges for captioning in French include a small market base and the fact that captioning technology was initially developed for the English language market.
Other examples of resolve include the simplification of the Canadian film or video tax credit as announced in the February 2000 budget. The Department of Canadian Heritage now requires that all certified productions be closed captioned for the hearing impaired. This is an especially important point because now even more Canadian stories that are set to film are shared with even more Canadians, thanks to services like closed captioning.
It is important to note as well that even with these positive measures in place, we face challenges that call for even more resolve. For instance, closed captioning in French is within a small market base that was originally designed to facilitate an English language market.
It is a fact that television has become an essential tool in the debate and exchange of free ideas. These ideas are the very same ones that help sustain and grow a democratic society such as ours without exclusion. All Canadians, including those who are hearing and visually impaired, deserve to be joined in debate and exchange ideas.
I support the initiative to commence with discussions on the important issue of closed captioning. I suggest to everyone that they make their concerns known to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the course of its review of the Canadian broadcasting system.
I conclude by congratulating the minister and her very able parliamentary secretary who have brought this issue to our attention, as well as the member of parliament who proposed the motion. It is my hope the motion will be adopted unanimously by members of parliament.
James Lunney Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, Motion No. 367 presented by the member for Longueuil states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired; (b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning; (c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed captioning.
I am very pleased to address the issue in the House for a number of reasons.
I am sure that every member in the House as a member of society comes across people who are hearing impaired. I remember one of my first personal experiences was with a friend who had grown to adulthood with a deaf parent. I was quite intrigued as I observed him using the American sign language as a communication tool. In his family that was the norm. He and his siblings all used sign language to communicate with their father .
The subject today is not about American sign language, it is about closed captioning on television. However it does bear considering the needs and the concerns of the deaf and being sensitive to those who are hearing impaired in our society.
I personally have been very impressed with the American sign language. If I may be allowed, I will go on for a moment about that.
The hearing impaired are able to communicate very well using sign language. On a ferry trip from Nanaimo to Vancouver I remember seeing a group of people who turned out to be constituents communicating using sign language.
I am quite keen to have someone do signing at our town hall meetings. We explored that possibility but were not successful in arranging it. We are still working on it. If there are people out there in my riding who have the skills to do that, I am looking for them.
Communication is a privilege that we enjoy as human beings. We like to think we are intelligent human beings, but even that can be the subject of debate in the House. It is a privilege to be able to paint a picture with words, to be able to discuss a subject such as the one we are debating today that does not involve those of us here who are not hearing impaired but we are able to identify with, that takes us into the lives, the hearts and the minds of people who have a disability that we do not have.
I wonder if we do not take our communication skills for granted sometimes. What a tremendous advantage it is for us to be able to communicate intimate thoughts, our thoughts about beauty and the wonderful world we see around us, to be able to describe what we see when travelling along the coast, a tide pool, a sunset or a wave breaking on the shore.
Communication is such a wonderful tool. It is such a wonderful opportunity that we have to express ourselves and to receive fulfillment in this world.
The issue the motion addresses is about access to information. It is about opportunity to engage in society and understand what is going on in the world. It is about inclusion. It is about personal development.
A few facts were presented by the hon. member for Longueuil and we appreciate that. She mentioned there are about three million people in Canada who are hearing impaired. I have some statistics that include the United States. Approximately 28 million people in the U.S. have some degree of reduced hearing sensitivity. That puts us at about the 10:1 ratio, which seems to be standard in so many issues between Canada and the United States relative to our populations.
Over one million children in the U.S. have a hearing loss. One in 1,000 infants born in the U.S. has a severe or profound hearing loss. In the first instance we are talking about the one in 1,000 infants born with a severe or profound hearing loss, but by the time they are school age children, a severe or profound hearing loss occurs in about nine children out of every 1,000.
Some of the information I was able to glean in trying to enter the world of the deaf and understand it a little better was information I received from Deaf and Mental Health Services in British Columbia. It did a survey recently. It gathered information by reviewing relevant literature on previous reports. It consulted with a community advisory committee and interviewed over 160 community members, family members and service providers individually and in small groups.
The statistics showed that of the target population of British Columbia, 8,000 children and adults from all ethnic and family backgrounds are deaf. I will quote a paragraph from its conclusions:
Although all Deaf people face tremendous communication barriers in a world designed for people who hear, this small population is very diverse in terms of pattern of deafness, communication preferences, signing skills, speaking skills, educational experiences, literacy, and abilities. About two-thirds of the Deaf population (about 5,000 BC residents) communicate primarily through American Sign Language (ASL) and are more or less oriented toward...the Deaf community.
It is important to recognize that it is not just the deaf person that is involved. Family members are also influenced. There are probably four people in an average household who are affected along with the deaf person.
I have just one more set of statistics to offer. About 90% of deaf children are born to parents who can hear and about 90% of children born to deaf parents can hear.
There is another segment of society that is very much influenced by this and it is those who suffer from adult onset hearing impairment. In my riding there are many people with this. There is a huge retirement community on Vancouver Island. Also affected are many of our World War II veterans, Korean war veterans, many of our mill workers who have been exposed to industrial noise, our bush workers, forestry workers and operators of heavy duty equipment.
I spoke with one audiologist in my riding. I was interested to find out that it takes between 80 decibels and 90 decibels for eight hours to create a hearing loss. I was surprised that something as innocuous as a hair blow dryer produces 90 decibels. We have to wonder about other noises we are exposed to in society. Perhaps we should consider having a debate on noise pollution.
I am concerned about the young people that I see driving down the street with boom boxes blaring in their cars that rattle not only their own vehicles but those across the street and perhaps even people in buildings across the street. I remember being in my office in Parksville, a small community on Vancouver Island, and actually feeling the building tremble. I went out to see what was causing it. It was a boom box in a young person's car out in the back lane. The noise was actually shaking the building. My receptionist and I were quite surprised to feel the impact of that.
I understand that the noise level from a boom box is about 140 decibels. At 140 decibels, that puts it right up there with what we might experience if we were standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier or if we were within 25 metres of a jet taking off, which is about 150 decibels. At those levels a person's eardrums can actually rupture.
This is a very serious issue that the member has raised. The issue is very important to members of our society.
I came across some information from the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. It did a study in June 1999. It identified three main issues associated with closed captioning on television: accessibility; quality of programming available to the hearing impaired; and awareness. Regarding quality, there are still some technical difficulties with closed captioning. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. As far as awareness issues, one-third of the Canadian general public cannot describe what closed captioning is and therefore are unaware of the issue.
In closing, any day that we learn something new is a good day. I appreciate that the member has brought this motion forward to raise the awareness of the issues relating to the deaf. The member's motion is about learning and opportunities to learn. It is about inclusion. It is about development. It is about helping people achieve satisfaction in life. It is about relieving a sense of isolation.
If I may be allowed, just in a nutshell, there is another metaphor that I personally have found very fulfilling. It has to do with learning. Being an islander, I relate to this: “The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder”.
This is about sharing knowledge and communicating knowledge. It is about helping a segment of our population enter fully with the rest of us into this marvellous experience in life of learning and growing together.
I am pleased to support the motion. I encourage all other members of the House to raise awareness of the deaf and the hearing impaired in our society.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Madam Speaker, I too am extremely pleased to join in this debate today. I want to acknowledge my colleague from the Bloc who over the last number of years on a regular basis has tried to remind us of some of the difficulties some people face in Canada.
I still recall the very first time that she took the time to sign in the House. Quite frankly, I was totally amazed that she had any type of disability whatsoever. It was not until that very day that I realized she did. She obviously has worked really hard to overcome her difficulties and she has been instrumental in having a good number of us recognize disabled people in Canada. I have a hard time even recognizing my colleague under the terminology disabled, because she certainly does not seem to have any greater problem in getting her message out than any of the rest of us, her message being to make us aware that there still are issues out there.
As technology has developed over the years there are those of us who have a tendency to think there are no problems for disabled people any more. There are organizations that represent the blind. There are organizations that represent other disabled people, whether they have ambulatory disabilities or otherwise. There are organizations that represent the deaf.
We tend to think that everything is looked after. There is tremendous technology in this day and age. We can send people to the moon. We can transmit from one community to another what a human body looks like so that a doctor can see it and decide what type of treatment should be proceeded with. Medical operations can be performed with robotics and tiny little instruments. Tremendous things are happening in the world of technology, so it is hard for some of us, unless we are affected, to realize that everybody does not have the same opportunities. It is hard for us to understand that not every program has closed captioning. If we do not need closed captioning, we just do not realize the need for it.
I have to admit that until the motion came up I did not realize all the specific things that are available to assist people, but I also did not recognize that they were not available to everyone. I did not realize that it was not something that was already happening, whereby every program would have closed captioning.
This is a very good time for the member's motion to come forward. My colleague from Dartmouth has been our representative on the disabilities committee and also on the heritage committee of the House. She has tried on an ongoing basis to keep us abreast of different things that are happening. She has made it very clear that the heritage committee has been dealing with a lot of issues on the Broadcasting Act. She feels that this is an extremely timely moment for the motion to be coming forward, because the committee is making recommendations for changes within the Broadcasting Act.
It was great to hear today from my colleagues on the government side that the government is open to addressing these concerns. I hope they are not just voicing their concerns and recognition but are going to make an honest to goodness effort to address the issue and ensure that recommendations and some legislation are put in place requiring broadcasters to bring forth closed captioning in all programming.
My colleague from Dartmouth also indicated that one of the thoughts out there for broadcasting companies is that they may not be open to legislation ensuring closed captioning. Right now they sell the service of closed captioning to advertisers so they are able to make some money from it. That is not to say that it is not wonderful to make money. We recognize that things need to be sold and that people want to buy them. There are business opportunities and there are entrepreneurs, but there are entrepreneurs and then there are those who want to make a profit from others' hardship and at their expense.
Quite frankly, it is important that we not only do research, promote technology and make legislation for profit but that we make it because it will be beneficial for society and for individuals.
It is crucial that the government, with the support of all parliamentarians and in recognizing that we represent Canadians who would support this as well, is given the dollars needed to promote technology and research in the area of providing more broad scoped closed captioning and other specific improvements that would benefit those less fortunate. It should not just be done on the basis that someone will not be able to make a dollar.
I have been serving on the industry committee and I have a bit of a hard time because I, quite frankly, think there are some things that people should not make a profit from. It is a matter of doing something because it is the right thing to do.
I wonder where we would have been in our society if Banting and Best had only been doing research to make a profit. Would they have really gone forward? I think they did their research with the intention of improving the lives of people in Canada.
I do not recall his name, but about a month or so ago I read about the fellow who first brought about canola production and the changes to the plant that we now know as canola. He did so without making a single penny. That was an issue of principle on his part. He was improving this crop to benefit people, not to make a buck. He has much higher regard in my books than a company that would go out and make a crop from which we could not grow from its seed. They could restrict who bought it and who could produce it so they could make a profit. I do not see this as beneficial to society. I do not see that as where the government should be going.
I want to reflect again on the issue of investing in research and technology. It is important that the government look at investing in those areas but not solely on the issue that if we invest in those area we will make a profit. The profit we make will not just be in dollars. It will be in the fact that we will be providing people who are less fortunate with the opportunity to broader knowledge education and to become equal partners in all aspects of society.
I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for bringing forward this very good motion. I certainly hope she gets the support of not only the majority of the House but all the House.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 367, brought forward by my our colleague, the member for Longueuil.
The motion before the House today asks the federal government to, and I quote:
(a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired;
Closed captioning involves printing on the screen, in sub-title format, the oral part of a television program, that is the dialogues and the narrative. This allows hearing impaired viewers to read what they cannot hear.
To access closed captioning, they have to decode a broadcasting signal known as “line 21”. To that end, the television receiver has to be equipped with an integrated closed captioning decoder for the hearing impaired or be upgraded by the installation of an external decoder.
I think that it is important to specify that parliament has made the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission the independent public authority responsible for regulating and monitoring the Canadian broadcasting system.
The CRTC has already issued specific requirements for closed captioning because it is convinced, just like you and me, that television has a fundamental role to play in the public debates and the free circulation of ideas that enrich a democratic society.
Under the Broadcasting Act, and I quote:
Programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose.
I believe it is important to remind the House that because of the higher cost to closed caption French language programming, private sector French language broadcasters do not provide the same level of closed captioned programs as English broadcasters. Even though they do not have the same requirements as English language television stations, they have always been encouraged to increase the number of hours of closed captioned programming that their station airs per year.
Allow me to explain the reasons behind the difference between English and French broadcasters.
Unlike their English counterparts, French broadcasters cannot purchase foreign programs that have already been closed captioned, because the closed captioning technology used in many French speaking countries is incompatible with the technology used in Canada. Furthermore, the cost of closed captioning in French is approximately 2.5 times greater than the cost of closed captioning in English.
As well, given the small size of the French market, the limited use of the service generates very few sponsors, and as a result, a weak return on investment.
According to many broadcasting specialists, these numerous obstacles mean that this type of service, despite its benefits for the hard of hearing, does little to benefit the competitiveness of French broadcasters.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the member for Longueuil, in the press release she issued on the day the motion was brought forward, said, and I quote:
--French networks, which are not required by the CRTC to meet the same closed captioning criteria as English networks--
In its 1999 television policy, the CRTC recognizes explicitly that the closed captioning requirements should be the same for both French and English broadcasters and is now applying this principle when renewing licences for French broadcasters.
Since 1999, the CRTC expects French broadcasters to gradually reach closed captioning levels similar to those of English broadcasters.
In developing its overall strategy with regard to closed captioning, the CRTC considered the fact that all licensees do not have the same financial resources.
Indeed, the requirements that may be just fine for a large station in an urban market could be a heavy financial burden for a station in a smaller market. So equality with regard to closed captioning will come gradually, slowly but surely.
For example, since 2001, the largest French private television network, TVA, knows that it will have to raise its closed captioning levels to 100% for its news programming by September 2004 and to 90% for all its programming by 2007.
Among the requirements of the Canadian Television Fund, closed captioning is compulsory for a production that includes narration, dialogues and songs, unless the program is intended for children under five, or is in an aboriginal language that does not use the roman alphabet.
The Government of Canada is committed to social inclusion and access for all Canadians to a broadcasting system that meets their needs. The principles underlying Motion No. 367 are unquestionably very laudable, but they do not, in the opinion of this government, require additional legislation or an amendment to the existing act.
In conclusion, I would invite the hon. member for Longueuil to inform the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of this important issue. It would be very appropriate for the author of Motion No. 367, to make representations and present her arguments to this committee.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil. I get the impression that a number of members of parliament have family members who are hard of hearing.
For example, many people know that, in his last years as governor general, my father had a lot of problems hearing from his right ear. When I go home, to New Brunswick, and my father is there, the volume of the television set is turned quite high.
I believe, like many of us, that Canadians who live with these difficulties and handicaps must have access to television and be able to learn from, to hear and to enjoy a society that they are also a part of.
The Deaf and Hearing ImpairedPrivate Members' Business
Progressive Conservative
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate in support of Motion No. 367 brought forward by the hon. member for Longueuil. I commend her for raising public awareness of those individuals with disabilities, particularly people with disabilities related to hearing.
I had the opportunity last week to participate in a forum during disability week in my own province of New Brunswick. I was escorted around in a wheelchair throughout the upper Saint John region. We are aware of the necessity to ensure that we have the appropriate accesses to rooms and elevators for those individuals who are physically challenged. We think we have made great inroads in our society, and the truth is we have.
However there is an awful lot that we must do. Any motion that we have before the House helps raise the awareness that there are initiatives the Government of Canada must take and that we as a society must take to ensure that those persons with disabilities have the right to participate in our society to their fullest capacity because they want to as well.
The motion we are debating states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired; (b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning; (c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed captioning.
According to Statistics Canada hearing loss and deafness affects millions of Canadians with 2.9 million Canadians experiencing some form of hearing loss. That is one in ten. The statistics are probably on the low side since most of the research and statistics gathering rely on self-identification and inconsistent use of terms and definitions. It is common for people to deny their hearing loss, as we might understand.
The Canadian Hearing Society along with other groups supports the motion and so does the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The reality is that deaf, deafened and hard of hearing Canadians continue to experience violations of basic human rights without regard to public broadcasting. Let us be clear. The need for and right to communications and language is fundamental to the human condition. Without communication an individual cannot become an effective and productive adult or an informed citizen in our democratic process.
Studies have proven conclusively and repeatedly that captioning assists both children and adults in learning literacy skills and in developing second-language skills. In 1987 the Canadian Association of the Deaf estimated that one-third of the populace could benefit directly from captioning. Considering this, one might assume that captioning is presently being provided by all television broadcasting as a matter of course, a matter of self-interest by broadcasters or a matter of regulatory requirements by the CRTC. This is simply not the case.
In November 2000 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the CBC had indeed discriminated on the basis of disability or deafness and ordered the CBC to caption everything it broadcasts on the first reasonable occasion. The CBC has chosen to challenge the decision. It will likely argue that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter because the CRTC is legally mandated to rule on broadcasting.
We cannot have our cake and eat it too. The industry cannot be exempt from the Canadian Human Rights Act and have the CRTC stripped of the power to regulate and require captioning. However it is important to note that the CBC and CTV are the best achievers among Canadian broadcasters as far as captioning is concerned.
The technology is not only capable of supplying the demand but it is already in the hands of the broadcasters. Even community cable channels have access to the equipment itself. It is important to point out that the Liberal government itself has agreed that closed captioning is of vital importance.
On May 30, 2001, parliamentarians gave their unanimous consent to a motion to adopt the report on the broadcasting and the availability of the debates and proceedings of parliament in both official languages. This report recommended, among other measures, the closed captioning in French of oral question period in the House, as is already being done in English. However, the government, as per usual, did not take any action.
Unfortunately, this is another chapter in the book called the Liberal government that does nothing and it is Canadians that pay. In this case there are individuals who have hearing losses or deafness and do not have the opportunity to participate to the degree that they should.
I would say to all members of the House that this is a mere motion. It is not a bill. It is not an actual piece of legislation. When the House approves a motion, Madam Speaker, and you are well aware of this particular aspect, it is expressing the will of the House to move in a direction to meet the intent of the motion. It may not be exactly as the member has worded it in the motion itself but the principles are followed through.
If Canadians are concerned, not just in principle but in reality, and if members of parliament are concerned beyond supporting the principle of the motion but not liking one comma that is in the sentence, then I ask all members of the House, regardless of what party stripe they yield from, to support Motion No. 367.
I wish to commend the member for Longueuil for her ongoing commitment to this most worthy cause. I ask all members to support the motion. The best way to do that is to put it to a vote. We can end the debate right here and now. Let us not filibuster this issue. There is no need to do that. I suspect that we have the support of the mover of Motion No. 367. If all members are concerned about this particular issue I would ask them to stay in their seats. Let us end the debate now and put it to a vote.
Karen Redman LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil urges the government to take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communication for the deaf and hearing impaired. I am pleased to speak to the importance of closed captioning for hundreds of thousands of Canadians and to inform the House of some of the steps being taken to meet their needs.
It may interest members to learn that while service to the hearing impaired community was the impetus for closed captioning, it is not the only community that benefits from the service. Educators have discovered that captioning can help children learn to read by assisting them in word recognition and comprehension. In addition, for the nearly five million Canadians who are functionally illiterate the service is a valuable tool in helping them learn to read. For many new Canadians for whom neither English nor French is their native tongue, closed captioning is an exceptionally useful tool in learning the idioms of the language as well as pop culture.
It is a tribute to previous members of the House that subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act sets out that:
(p) programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose--
Section 3 of the act also indicates that the needs and circumstances of all Canadians should be taken into account by the broadcasting industry through its programming and through the employment opportunities that arise out of its operations. Broadcasters' actions as they relate to employment equity and closed captioning must reflect this policy objective.
In the past four years there has been a requirement for all television stations with more than $10 million in annual advertising revenue and network payments to provide closed captioning on all local news including live segments. This is relatively recent. It is a clear indication of the importance of continuing to expand and improve this service. It is no easy task. Our broadcasters should be commended for the efforts they make to fulfill this requirement.
When a program is produced well in advance and the actors or performers use a script it is relatively easy to take the words and time their appearance on the screen so it corresponds with what is seen. This is often called off-line or post production. For much of the programming produced for the mass market this can be done with relative ease.
However the challenge facing local or live action broadcasters is very different. They must do what is called real time captioning. This involves stenographers who transcribe live programs such as news or sports events as they are broadcast. It is a tremendous challenge as well as a wonderful achievement.
Some programs use what is called live display. This is a subset of real time. It allows scripted portions of a program to be fed into a computer for translation into captions but omits any spontaneous or unscripted segments.
In short, steps are being taken to ensure that as technologies evolve and opportunities arrive so too will services to Canadians with hearing impairment evolve and improve.
The quality of the services being provided to Canadians is a source of pride to all of us, but that does not mean we can rest on our laurels. As we know, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying the relevance of the Broadcasting Act. It is a most opportune time to revisit the quality of the services being provided and examine ways they can be improved. I therefore applaud the initiative to discuss the important issue of closed captioning. I urge all who are concerned to let their concerns be known to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
In my own community I spent seven years with the independent living centre as a puppeteer with Kids on the Block. One of the puppets was hearing impaired. At the time I was able to do sign language. It struck me what an important communication tool it was and how important it was to we make sure that when we provide services in Canada they benefit all Canadians.
Sarmite Bulte LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, I am happy to have a minute to offer my thanks to the hon. member for Longueuil for her work on the issue and for her motion.
The hon. member opposite and I were elected in 1997. For one of the statements she made in the last session of parliament the hon. member for Longueuil got up and gave her S.O. 31 in sign language. It was the only time in the history of parliament it had been done. It was quite commendable. I thank her for that and for her work in this area.
We have been dealing with the issue at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as part of our review of the Broadcasting Act. Last week at the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages the issue was raised by Senator Gauthier of the other place when Mr. Rabinovitch of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appeared before us.
It is an important issue. The member's motion is timely because we are in the process of amending the Broadcasting Act. Her motion provides impetus to our study. We hope to be able to come out with a solid recommendation that keeps very much in mind what the hon. member has brought before us today by way of her motion.
The Deaf and Hearing ImpairedPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 1.31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.30 p.m.)