Friday, October 27, 2006

PANEL DISCUSSION: "Creating a climate for accessible ICT: Telecommunications as a case study."

Moderator: Jim Tobias (Inclusive Technologies)

Panelists: Lana Kerzner (ARCH Disability Law Centre), Bill Abbott (Bell Canada), Henry Vlug (Canadian Association of the Deaf), Gary Birch (Neil Squire Society)

In February 2006, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ordered Bell Canada, Telus, and Canada's other "incumbent local exchange carrier" (ILEC) telephone companies to spend $32 million improving the accessibility of telecommunications services in Canada. That decision was one result of a 2002 CRTC decision that capped the rates the ILEC companies could charge for local telephone services. The purpose of that price cap was to encourage competition by keeping local telephone rates artificially high so that new entrants, who would need to charge high rates to recoup their initial investments, could not be undercut by the established ILEC companies. ILEC's that could have charged less than the price cap were required to put their operational savings into "deferral accounts" rather than passing those savings on to consumers through lower rates.

In 2004, the CRTC initiated a review and public consultation to determine how the funds held in the ILEC companies' deferral accounts should be spent. By 2006, over $652 million had been set aside in those accounts, mostly held by Bell Canada ($481 million) and Telus ($125 million). After reviewing a variety of proposals from ILECs, new companies, mainstream consumer groups, and disability advocacy organizations, the CRTC directed the ILEC companies to spend at least five percent ($32 million) of their deferral account funds improving the accessibility of telecommunications services for persons with disabilities, and the remainder on expanding high-speed Internet services to rural and remote communities (CRTC Telecom Decision 2006-9). The companies were directed to submit proposals to the CRTC by June 30, 2006 (later extended to September 1, 2006).

This initiative, which is informally known as the "deferral account decision," also ordered the ILEC companies to consult with organizations of people with disabilities in the development of their proposals to improve accessibility. Representatives of national disability advocacy organizations formed a working group in the spring of 2006, and spent two days meeting in Toronto in June 2006, first amongst themselves then with representatives of the ILEC companies. The working group subsequently formed a smaller "technical task force" composed of working group members with the greatest technical expertise. That task force held several conference calls with the ILEC companies during the summer of 2006.

This panel discussed the deferral account decision as well as other regulatory and non-regulatory strategies for improving telecommunications accessibility as a case study for working towards more accessible and inclusive ICT.

Panelist: Lana Kerzner (ARCH Disability Law Centre)

Kerzner explained that the CRTC's "public notice" on the deferral accounts did not specifically deal with disability until the CRTC received submissions from ARCH, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, and individuals with disabilities.

"ARCH had been advocating for the interests of people with disabilities in other proceedings before the CRTC. The bottom line is that telecommunications weren't then and still are not accessible to many persons with disabilities. Our submissions have always focused on the joint legal obligation shared by the CRTC and the telecommunications industry to ensure that all telecommunications products and services are accessible to persons with disabilities. When we saw the public notice about the deferral account funds, we thought it would be a strategic opportunity to strongly recommend that the funds be allocated to initiatives to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. Our argument was grounded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equality provision in particular, and the duty to ensure accessible telecommunications for all Canadians."

Kerzner explained that ARCH created a detailed submission outlining the allocation of funds for accessibility, and stressed that the deferral accounts were only one part of the efforts required to achieve accessible telecommunications in Canada.

"We argued that the deferral account funds would not be the only initiative required to meet the legal obligations. The allocation of these funds would be a strategic opportunity and a major initiative to help move accessibility along. Our submission not only called for the allocation of funds for accessibility, but it also called for the companies to consult with persons with disabilities and disability advocacy organizations in coming up with proposals. We also made it clear that because maintaining accessibility in telecommunications is an ongoing process, expenditures that the telephone companies make regarding disability initiatives must also be ongoing and not limited to whatever funds might be allocated in the context of the deferral account proceeding."

Kerzner explained that the 2006 deferral account decision had two important aspects from a disability perspective.

"One was that a minimum – and that's an important word that gets missed or overlooked – a minimum of five percent of the deferral account funds were to be spent on accessibility. The other very important aspect of the decision is that the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILEC's), which are the major local telephone companies, were directed to – and I'm using the words of the CRTC decision – they were directed to 'consult and work with the appropriate advocacy organizations for persons with disabilities, prior to submitting proposals for approval.' As a result, a number of disability advocacy organizations got together and the ILEC's also took some initiatives."

Kerzner concluded her summary of the deferral accounts proceeding by noting, "both Bell Canada and mainstream consumer groups have appealed this decision on different grounds and it is now under appeal at the federal court. It's still up in the air as to how this is going to play out."

Panelist: Bill Abbott (Bell Canada)

Moderator Jim Tobias asked Bill Abbott, a regulatory lawyer with Bell Canada, to begin his opening comments by answering the question "How significant an opportunity do you think the CRTC's deferral account decision offers for improving the accessibility of telecom in Canada?"

Abbott said that it was a significant opportunity, but added, "I do not believe that regulatory action is necessarily the best answer or the only answer." Abbott viewed the CRTC's decision as an opportunity for telecommunication companies to re-focus regarding accessibility issues.

"I think it was an important watershed in the sense that Bell Canada and other telecommunications companies have been past leaders in accessibility on a number of fronts, certainly through the 1970's and 80's. For a variety of corporate and external reasons, there was not the same focus on accessibility in the 1990's. The deferral account proceeding was a good opportunity to sort of re-focus on what is a very significant issue."

Abbott stated that disability issues had also been ignored by government, and that advocates from the disability community had not used effective advocacy strategies in dealing with Bell Canada.

"I think it's fair to say that just about everybody has been 'missing in action' on this file over the past ten years. It has not been the corporate priority that it should be, it has not been the priority before the CRTC that it should be. And at the risk of offending individuals in the room, I don't think it has been pursued appropriately by advocates for the disabled community in relation to companies like Bell Canada. Disability issues have just not been on our map. It wasn't in the business planning, it wasn't in the budget, it wasn't in the technology development, and it needs to be there."

Abbott stated that Bell Canada's submission about how to spend its deferral account funds proposed several positive changes regarding accessibility for people with disabilities. "2007 will be a good year for accessibility as far as the implementation of video relay service, improved customer service for various disabled groups; voice activated dialling, and a Bell accessibility fund." Abbott added that the deferral account decision has stimulated other accessibility initiatives at Bell Canada.

"There's a lot very productive stuff happening now that was not and cannot be ordered by the regulator. For example, Bell University Labs, Bell Canada's research funding arm which has relationships with approximately 30 Canadian universities, is actively looking for research proposals relating to accessible telecommunications. I know that they've already received a number of proposals. In the past, accessibility was not much of a priority for them; now it is."

Abbott concluded by stressing that he felt building relationships is the key to moving the accessibility agenda forward. He described some of the challenges that occurred during meetings held between the ILEC companies and disability organizations following the deferral account decision.

"The consultation resulting from the deferral account decision was a good starting point to start building some relationships. If it's going to work, it's got to be a long term process and we have to get to know each other. My feeling after the consultation process was that we were talking past each other. Regarding telecommunications, the disabled community and the corporate community don't really understand each other that well. We haven't been that engaged, with the exception of the groups that we deal with on a regular basis for the Bell message relay service. It's necessary to understand each other in order to make things go forward."

Panelist: Henry Vlug (Canadian Association of the Deaf)

In his opening comments, Henry Vlug, a lawyer who represents deaf Canadians, agreed with Abbott that the 1970's and 80's were a better time for accessibility, but questioned the intentions of the telecommunications companies. "Bell Canada was doing well and used to be a leader in the 70's and 80's because CRTC told them to do so, not necessarily because the phone companies were well intentioned."

Describing the differences between Canada and the United States, Vlug echoed that at one point Canada was a leader in message relay services but is now lagging behind.

"The relay services in Canada were set up well before those in the United States, which initiated their services after. Since that time they've well exceeded us, and we are lagging behind, desperately chasing those services. It's been incredibly frustrating in Canada."

Vlug said the deferral account decision was a great opportunity to increase the accessibility of telecommunications but expressed concern regarding about what might result. "My experience so far is that the phone companies are not necessarily seizing the moment, or taking that opportunity seriously." To support this statement, Vlug described the consultations that occurred between the disability community and the telecommunication companies in mid-2006.

"The disability community set up a group to work with the phone companies on the specific details. We had a two day meeting in Toronto. The first day the disability organizations met, on the second day the phone companies joined in and we began the discussion. When the phone companies joined, they said 'sorry, we've already decided [the accessibility initiatives they were going to propose to the CRTC]. There's nothing you can do; we can't change what we've already set up.' I don't think that's what we would call consultation and it's not a good use of the opportunity. I'm hoping that that will change, however. If Bell Canada and other phone companies want us to work with them, then they have to work with us."

Vlug then pointed out that Bell was not the only company reacting this way and described a similar situation regarding the deaf community and Telus in British Columbia. "Telus called a consultation meeting with the deaf community in BC. It's screwed up completely; the whole Telus consultation in BC is not going well. It's extremely frustrating and that's not new to report."

Concluding his opening comments, Vlug stated that the negative experiences the deaf community has encountered with Bell's relay service advisory committee provokes human rights complaints and lawsuits.

"Bell's relay service advisory committee is not an effective group and this has caused myself and other advocates across the country to give up on it. They call a meeting once or twice a year, just to allow the phone companies an opportunity to report to the deaf community what they're doing, and that's where the discussion ends. It's not about 'how can we improve or incorporate your suggestions?' It is committees like that and those experiences that caused us to go to human rights, the courts, and CRTC. I would prefer not to go that route, but what options do we have?"

Panelist: Gary Birch (the Neil Squire Society)

Gary Birch, an engineer and Executive Director of the Neil Squire Society, echoed some of Henry Vlug's comments about the consultations between the disability community and the telephone companies. Overall, however, he presented a more positive impression of the outcomes to date. Birch agreed with Vlug that the two day meeting in Toronto was frustrating.

"As soon as we got in the room with the telephone companies, it was clear that although there might be a will to do some interesting stuff, they didn't want to talk about it because of proprietary issues and it was a competitive environment. It was really difficult to put a national agenda together."

Ultimately, however, Birch saw the experience – particularly the meeting of the disability advocacy organizations the day before the meeting with the phone companies – as a good thing for the disability community.

"We [the disability advocacy organizations], by getting around the table, discussing our different priorities and what we were trying to accomplish was particularly useful. It allowed for us to coordinate our efforts and to speak with one voice as much as possible. It was a catalyst to bring us together and to focus on this issue. It helped us from a national perspective, around the consumer movement, to try to get a handle on what the cross cutting themes we all have in common are so that we can push forward."

Birch stressed the importance of regulation by citing the impacts that Section 255 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act have had in the US, both on companies that provide telecommunications services as well as companies that manufacturer telecommunications equipment. He said, "I wish we didn't have to have regulation, but it's certainly one of the levers out there that causes some action to happen around accessibility. In the States the regulators are pointing to both the service providers and the manufacturers." In contrast, Birch stated "the regulation in Canada seems to be focused primarily or totally on the service providers" and are therefore less successful in achieving accessibility. Birch said that in Canada "we have no mandatory procurement regulations around accessibility. Even though the tools to make accessible procurement do exist, there's no political will to make it a requirement." As an example, Birch discussed a frustrating experience dealing with service providers and manufacturers.

"There's a finger pointing that goes on between the telephone companies that are the service providers and the manufacturers of the handsets and other end equipment that people use. You have to get both involved and engaged. What often happens is service providers say 'that's not really our problem. It's because the handset manufacturers don't provide the accessibility features within their equipment. There's really not much we can do.' But when you talk to the manufacturers of the handsets, they say that they build them depending upon the specifications that the service providers ask for."

Birch concluded by agreeing with Vlug that he felt the telecommunication companies had largely made up their minds about what needed to be done prior to the consultations with the disability community. However, he was more optimistic than Vlug regarding the success of the June 2006 meeting in Toronto.

"Through our discussions they were at least open to what we were trying to put forward. I believe they did respond to some extent in a way that tried to encompass the direction that we wanted them to go; this is reflected in some of the proposals that went forward. So, although it was a very frustrating exercise, I think we did get them to move from their original position."

DISCUSSION:

After each panelist provided opening comments, moderator Jim Tobias asked them to consider two specific questions:

• "What is it about the deferral account decision that offers an opportunity to improve how accessible telecom is practiced?"
  
  
• "How can it improve accessible telecommunications, programmatically and organizationally, in Canada?"

Bill Abbott stated that the major flaw of the deferral account process was that "it was the wrong venue to do this sort of thing." Abbott suggested that there were key players missing who are necessary to tackle the larger issues that the disability working group and task force brought to the table. "You didn't even have all the telephone companies there, only the major former monopoly telephone companies."  He said that the reason that telecommunications is more accessible in the USA is because "the law applies to all the key players; it affects manufacturers, distributors, as well as procurement." In order to address these larger issues Abbott suggested that there needed to be more telephone companies, equipment manufacturers, and the Canadian Standards Association present. He suggested that Industry Canada may be a place where these issues can be addressed since the federal government has the ability to gather the appropriate players and make them act. Abbott suggested that only imposing accessibility requirements on some companies gives their competitors a business advantage.

Abbott agreed that the consultation between the disability community and the telephone companies was a frustrating experience.

"We had a very specific agenda, we needed concrete ideas that we could file in a few months in order to roll out in 2007. We turned up at the meeting saying, 'what do you want?' We had some ideas that were really enhancements of existing services, to sort of prime the pump. The response, and I'm summarizing at a very high level here, was, 'what've you got?' We don't really know what people want, and the sort of technologies that are available out there. Many of the telco's are not specialists in that."

Abbott reiterated that the companies were expecting concrete ideas regarding accessible technology that could be implemented for 2007. Instead, however, he said, "we came away with high level principles and a clear idea of where accessible technology should be in ten or twenty years. But as far as what I could file next year, I got nothing."

On a positive and reflective note, Abbott described what was learned from the consultation. He said that, in retrospect, the companies "came at it from the wrong end." He said, "relationships that have not existed for quite some time have to be rebuilt and there has to be an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each group and how they work. I think there's a misunderstanding of how each group works and what their jurisdictions are." Abbott stated that he believes having Bell Canada's technical staff collaborate with the University of Toronto's Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) will be a useful in understanding what adaptive technology exists and how that technology can be incorporated to produce accessible telecommunication products. At the time of the consultations with the disability groups, Abbott believed that the groups would be presenting information about adaptive technology. Looking back, however, he acknowledged that was an unrealistic expectation.

Abbott argued that regulation is not the most effective method for producing accessible technology. He said, "it certainly can get things going, but it's not the answer. As long as accessibility continues to be largely a regulatory issue, it is not going to get the momentum it needs. When it becomes a business issue, that's when there's going to be real success." Abbott stated that making a business case for accessibility is a far more effective method.

"When the technology development and marketing people in companies understand that there's a positive business plan behind this, and that it's good for the disability community as well as everyone else, that's when things will really take off. I think as long as it's solely a regulatory issue, it's going to develop slowly."

In response, Gary Birch stated, "regulation does have an important role, but ideally we would really like to get away from that." He agreed with Abbott and said that building a business case for accessibility that makes sense is a more effective method. Birch explained that he has been attempting to build a business case and develop relationships with companies but has found it incredibly difficult.

"Industry won't necessarily do all the profitable things; they'll do the most profitable things. We've been able to demonstrate that there might be a profitable business case to go after here, but it hasn't been the top one, two, or three priorities and hence it gets pushed to the back."

Birch reinforced the need to build relationships and explained a relationship he helped develop with cell phone manufacturer Nokia "eventually led into a fee-for-service contract where we're now building an accessory for a line of their phones that will make it accessible for people with very severe mobility impairments." Birch is pleased with this relationship, but emphasized that it is just a starting point.

"They still don't really get it in terms of the big picture of where we'd like to go. I think they wanted to do it partly because it was the right thing to do and partly because I think they felt it would help them avoid regulation. They're a long way from that vision of involving disability groups and experts in the planning and the concept stage when products and services are first getting considered. These relationships take a long time to build, and they're very expensive and time consuming to create."

Birch then presented a promising method of creating a business case for accessibility that he had been recently exploring.

"I think the way to grab the attention of the real decision makers within industry is if we can get them far enough along to do some controlled demonstrations on a public scale. In doing so, we can show what can be done when you build inclusive, accessible technology. People will not only see how this technology enables people with disabilities to utilize that technology, but they will begin to see the other spin-off benefits and usability in general, about how everybody likes these kinds of features. You can talk about it and describe it, but until they really see what can really happen in fairly concrete terms, that's when I've seen the most excitement happen."

Looking at the larger picture, Birch concluded by saying that "We just can't leave the conversation by saying we need to build a better business case. I realize that's part of the discussion, but we've got to get more sophisticated with that somehow. This is what we've been trying to do and it doesn't get traction."

Henry Vlug stated that the USA has been more successful in producing accessible technology because of the relationships that American companies have with the American disability community. Vlug commented that the US is far more advanced and if Canadian companies are looking for examples of accessible technology they should look to them.

He said that one factor which contributes to the successes in the United States is that U.S. companies and regulatory bodies employ more people with disabilities than their Canadian counterparts.

"How many Deaf people are working in Bell Canada? I think there are a few who do data entry or janitorial, but that's probably it. Do you have any lawyers working for Bell Canada who are Deaf? The same is true of CRTC; all their staff is able-bodied people, there are no disabled people or deaf people. However, when you look across the border, the phone companies have deaf people working in senior management, they have deaf people in charge of relay services, and there are several Deaf lawyers working for the Federal Communications Commission in the US."

Bill Abbott acknowledged that Bell Canada does not employ enough people with disabilities and people who are Deaf. He noted, however, that the company has cut thousands of jobs in the last five years. With the exception of call centres, he said, "we're just not hiring a lot of new people. It just happens to be part of the cycle that we're in."

Henry Vlug argued that message relay services are more effective in the U.S. because those services are provided by specialized relay companies rather than the phone companies themselves.

"All the U.S. phone companies contribute into a fund. The phone companies themselves do not provide the relay services; that is done by separate relay companies. These companies provide the services, and then they charge back to the account that everybody has contributed into. The eight or nine video relay service (VRS) companies are also now competing with one another and improving their services so that more deaf people and hearing people will use their services, so they can bill the fund more frequently. They have a for-profit incentive built in. In Canada we don't have that set up. Instead we have to rely on CRTC to mandate and/or force the phone companies to do this, that and the next thing. The phone companies will do whatever it is that they are regulated to do, but not necessarily anything more."

Lana Kerzner reminded the panelists of industry's and governments legal responsibilities to provide accessible telecommunications.

"It is not the responsibility of the disability community to present a business case for accessibility to happen. There is actually a fundamental legal right to have telecommunications accessible to persons with disabilities on a non-discriminatory basis. That emanates from Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the section which guarantees equality. There are human rights laws which established the right to equal treatment in federal industry. There are also important sections of the Telecommunications Act that address unjust discrimination. The fundamental policy section of the Telecommunications Act is what the CRTC often relies upon in their decisions to ground their directions relating to accessibility. I believe that they relied on that in the deferral accounts decision."

Bill Abbott suggested that dialogue between companies' technology staff and researchers in accessible and adaptive technology may be one way of bridging the gap between industry and the disability community. He also felt that a lack of understanding of existing adaptive technology, on both sides, was a major cause of the frustration at the May 2006 meeting in Toronto. Money, he said, wasn't the issue.

"There's been a certain amount of talk about how more needs to be done; more money needs to be spent. In the context of the deferral account, we [Bell Canada] came to the table with $24 million dollars, and we could only get ideas for half of that. We need to develop the relationships and the understanding to figure out how to spend the money."

Abbott also noted that many of the ideas presented by organizations of people with disabilities related to hardware that the companies do not produce themselves.

"There were a lot of ideas around the table, but many of them related to areas that we have absolutely nothing to do with. I think it comes as a surprise to some people that we're not in the terminal equipment business. We're not in the phone business. We haven't built the thing you hold in your hand for about 40 years. They were deregulated 25, 30 years ago, and we are a very small part of the distribution. Future Shop sells a lot more phones than Bell Canada. And if you wanted to change the way they're built, you talk to Future Shop and not us."

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD:

Marcia Cummings (Rogers Communications Inc., Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians) challenged Bill Abbott's account of the June 2006 meeting between the disability working group and the ILEC companies.

"Bill said that we didn't give them specifics. I was at the two day meeting in Toronto in June, and we did have a list of specifics at the end of day one. But we decided to hang onto it, to have it presented to the ILECs by the [disability community's technical task force], rather than do it in the context of the big disability working group. At that meeting we thought that we would present the high level material and see if the ILEC'S agreed with us on the six different areas that we chose where money should be spent."

After hearing Abbott's account that the companies were looking for specifics, she acknowledged that the disability community may have taken the wrong approach by not presenting those ideas at the June 2006 meeting. She noted, however, that most of the specific ideas that were subsequently presented to the ILEC companies by the technical task force did not end up in the ILECs' proposals to the CRTC. From her perspective it appeared that "Bell Canada had their minds made up and they weren't going to take any of our input."

Abbott agreed that Bell Canada did receive that list, but said that it lacked detail and was received too late to implement.

"I think there's a misunderstanding about what was meant by 'specifics.' There's a detailed list of about 50 items but there are things on it like 'make 911 more accessible for the disabled.' I'm thinking how? Which groups? What technology? I guess we needed to be clear about what it was we needed. We needed to understand the technology, the cost, that sort of thing. I think there was also a timing issue. We did get the list but it was within two months of the deadline for filing our proposal to the CRTC. It was just too late for us to be able to develop anything at that point. Looking back on it we probably needed the list in February, long before we even started the consultations. I came to the file assuming that there'd be a long list of well worked out proposals and we'd just be sorting out which ones are 'keepers.' I didn't realize quite where we'd be starting from."

Gary Birch agreed that the tight timeframe was a "huge problem."

"Because of the time it takes within each company to move forward on these things, they had really made up their minds about what they were going to put forward when they met with the disability working group – or were very close to making up their minds – and really had very little time to consider other things. As a working group we were trying to take a more systemic approach – not that there weren't a few specifics that we knew needed addressing right away—but generally we were trying for solutions that were going to lead to longer term systemic solutions. That takes a lot more thinking and working out work plans, etc. which there just wasn't time or capacity to do."

Phyllis Gordon (ARCH Disability Law Centre) noted that the Canadian disability community needs to be concerned about the mainstream consumer organizations that are appealing the deferral account decision. Those organizations are arguing that the deferral account funds should be rebated to consumers who paid artificially high rates.

"A huge issue for this community is that the Consumers Association of Canada doesn't understand that disability is relevant to their constituency. They think an $80 rebate is more important than a concerted disability strategy or accessibility strategy. People have to realize we have a huge outreach [challenge] not just to the phone companies but to the country at large."

Gordon also agreed with Bill Abbott's earlier comment that the deferral account decision's accessibility goals are hampered because it has no affect on non-ILEC companies providing local telecommunications companies (e.g., Rogers, Shaw), nor companies that manufacture telecommunications equipment.

"It is critical that we bring in the manufacturers and the competitors. We had always seen the deferral accounts as just being a kick start. Regulation is essential to bringing in those players, and the regulation that's missing – the kind of frameworks that exist in the States and Europe dealing with standards and regulations and manufacturing and procurement policies – is at Industry Canada. Those aren't the things that the CRTC is going to deal with."

Kurt Lynn (Canadian Hard of Hearing Association) stated that regulation regarding accessible technology in Canada is necessary simply because of the low numbers of people with disabilities compared to the numbers in the USA. "We have 3 million hard of hearing people in Canada; the US has 30 million. A market of 30 million is a significantly more actionable market than a market of three million. Market dynamics will always drive business. You've already seen businesses will address old age faster than they will address blindness or hearing deficits. To my way of thinking, regulation is an important way to bend capitalism to address human rights."

He noted, however, that regulation has shortcomings. "It puts the energy onto compliance rather than to innovation. We have to look to innovation to come from the regulatory bodies and, unfortunately, if we're concerned about companies acting slowly or about disability organizations acting slowly, government acts even more slowly."

Lynn also offered several reasons for what Bill Abbott described as the two groups "talking past each other."

"We're very different organizations. Bell Canada is a behemoth of an organization that is tightly structured, has very specific business plans, has very specific operating goals, as are each of the various telephone companies. Disability organizations, we're not quite that crisp. In fairness, we went into those hearings ill prepared. We did not have the time to be prepared.

We should have somehow found a way to defer it [the meetings] by a year because, in fact, it would have taken that long to prepare a reasonable proposal. So we were already somewhat doomed from the start. It was all we could pull together to act as one voice, or close to one voice, let alone to get down to the specifics of some of these proposals. So we were talking past one another and, in the context of a compliance-oriented meeting, I don't think we have any choice but to talk past one another. The issue where that kind of discussion has to take place is more on the operational level down. It needs to be in Bell Labs down with your product managers, not with the lawyers."

Gary Birch agreed with Lynn that regulation stifles creativity and innovation. In response to Abbott's suggestion that researchers involved with disability issues could be the bridge between the disability community and telephone companies, Birch said the disability community has limited time and resources to make this work and suggested that government and industry may need to fund the disability community's participation.

Bill Abbott stated that Bell Canada was unable to come up with plans for $12 million of its deferral account funds, and proposed that money be put into a fund (the Bell Accessibility Fund) that "we can spend over three, four years, giving us the time to work things out, to build the relationships, and to find the right answers beyond the answers already in the Bell proposal."

Abbott also echoed Lynn's and Birch's comments regarding regulation and innovation.

"As far as relying on regulation and law, you can quote me: regulation does have an important role to play, but I think there's a real problem with relying too heavily on regulation. It's already been said that you can't regulate innovation. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone to help the deaf, not because he was regulated to do so but because he was an innovative guy. You have to create an environment for innovation. As long as this is a regulatory issue and companies are being told 'you have to do this,' there's going to be a certain amount of reluctance. When it becomes a business issue and you engage marketing and technology people, that's when it's really going to take off. That's why I'm quite interested in universal design because some of our technology people are talking to Jutta Treviranus at the University of Toronto's Adaptive Technology Research Centre and they came back and said 'this is really cool stuff. It's not only good for accessibility, it's just good design period; it makes it easier for everybody.' I think that will be the breakthrough idea."

Henry Vlug noted that only Bell Canada's and Telus's proposals for spending their deferral account funds included video relay services (VRS), which will lead to regional inequities. "If you live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Atlantic Canada, too bad: you're not going to get VRS. One would think you'd have to have some kind of standardized service in Canada."

Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba) commented that when building bridges between industry and people with disabilities, it is important to not get stuck in the technical issues.

"When we think about building bridges, we need to not get stuck in technical issues. I think there's a place for structural engineers in building bridges; there's a real important place for getting the infrastructure, the technical issues correct. But what I learned at the meetings in June and overall throughout this process, is that what we keep missing is the relationship piece. And the relationship piece doesn't just happen at the technical level. If we focus just on the technical level, we're going to miss a really important capacity building to have long-term conversations about the directions of regulation, about how to move things through a telecom review panel. If we don't continue to have conversations at a high level, not just at a technical level, but at a high sophisticated level between lawyers and political scientists and engineers, we're just not going to move it forward."

Stienstra asked Bill Abbott if Bell Canada was willing to financially support the disability community to develop its capacity to work collaboratively with industry.

"To what extent did the working group and Bell Canada, in its leadership role with the ILECs, consider developing the mechanism for this? It seems to me what the disability organizations have said consistently is 'we don't have enough capacity right now. We don't have any resources to give to this.' Bell Canada has $12 million extra. How much of that is going to go into helping us with our capacity and our resource issues, to engage in an ongoing conversation with you? Not to solve these initial problems, but to what extent can we use this to move forward the bridge building exercise?"

Abbott did not directly answer Stienstra's question, but commented that some key players were missing during the consultations with the disability working group and technical task force.

"The companies had the mid-level managers there and I think it's fair to say that the disability groups did as well. We didn't have the technology people on our side and the researchers on the other side who would be able to talk to us about what's possible and specific ideas that could be brought into fruition. In retrospect we also didn't have somebody like a VP from marketing or at least somebody with some serious budgeting [authority], to buy into the business model and to see the opportunities.

You need a strategy that's not dependent on one proceeding and what's coming up next year. You need a strategy, basically a business plan like we have for so many other things. I'm just one guy in regulatory and you've got to get buy-in before you raise expectations. You have to get buy-in from a whole bunch of groups. Bell Canada was referred to as a behemoth. It's more like a leviathan. It has a whole bunch of little bits and to get anything to happen a bunch of those bits have to agree. I'm already sold on the accessibility issue but there's a lot of work to be done internally."

Group Discussions: Reflections on the lessons of Dis-IT

Groups: People with disabilities, government, industry and service providers

Conference participants were separated into four separate small group discussions for each of the Dis-IT Research Alliance's four non-academic stakeholder groups: people with disabilities, government, industry, and service providers. Each group was asked to discuss the following questions:

1. Yesterday's program included two sessions on findings from the Dis-IT Research Alliance's work. What one research finding do you think could be of most use to your community or group?
   
   
2. What is one new thing that you've learned at this conference?
   
   
3. To achieve the goal of accessible and inclusive information technology what one action do you think is most needed within your community?
   
   
4. What one action do you think is most possible within your community?

The small groups gathered together to report on the results of their discussions. Because of time constraints, most of the discussion focused on questions 3 and 4.

Government group

Dave Brown (Human Resources and Social Development Canada) spoke on behalf of the people who attended the government group. He focused on the last question from the four posed.

"One action we think is most needed is clear accountability for existing regulations. We felt that we have some decent regulations and policies but they're not being followed within the government. Our wish list is to get it more accountable so we can hold that over both new groups and within the government to get action done."

Brown said that the action that is most possible within government is the creation of accessible forms.

Service Provider group

Maureen Hewlett (University of Northern British Columbia) and Joan Wolforth (McGill University) reported on the discussion from the service provider group. Wolforth said the one action most needed was improved transmission of information. She stated that service providers have difficulty keeping up with a rapidly moving field. This group concluded that there is a need to develop a framework that would improve the transmission of information.

Wolforth, who is also a member of the Canadian Association of Disability Service Providers in Post-secondary Education (CADSPPE), suggested one action most likely within CADSPPE was "organizing an AT subgroup where the people who actually do have expertise in the universities at the service provider level would begin with a fledgling group. This group would then expand out into other IT people in the university. There is a great deal to be gained from expanding out into expertise within communities. We have a very concrete goal there to try and improve the environment and we will begin working on almost immediately on this initiative."

Hewlett concluded by stating the importance for "disability service providers to become knowledgeable about universal instructional design and work to have it pushed into curriculum.  Talk to the computer science departments, marketing, business, and engineering. Give departmental workshops and learning modules on universal instructional design."

Industry group

Gary Birch (Neil Squire Society) reported on the discussion from the industry small group. The group identified three industry actions most needed to achieve accessible and inclusive information technology in response to the third question.  The first was a need for corporate leaders that can champion accessibility within their companies. Secondly, Birch stated that bridging the gap between industry and people with disabilities requires industry to develop "a better understanding of what the needs of the disability community are and what their particular product or service can do for people with disabilities." The industry group's third action was the development of products with "open platforms which enable third party groups to develop accessibility solutions."

Birch emphasized, however, that the industry group felt that the original manufacturer of a product has a shared responsibility for making third-party solutions work.

"Manufacturers can't simply put out a product and say 'good, there are small third party groups out there that will come up with [accessibility] solutions.' It really has to be proactively supported by industry to make things happen, particularly when you're looking at solutions that might affect the smaller user groups within the disability community."

Birch explained that the industry group decided to discuss what is most important to do first rather than answering question 4 ("what one action is most possible in your community or group?") They felt that the priority was identifying a process to allow companies in a variety of IT industries to develop a better understanding of the needs of people with disabilities.

"The basic concept was that industry needs to develop a cross-cutting, inclusive kind of understanding of the disability market. Practical demonstrations can be really powerful. Demonstrations in the real world can show industry how a certain technology can be utilized by a range of people and, while it certainly will help people with disabilities, they'll be surprised at how other users will find that those kinds of things are really useful to use as well."

Birch also reported that this group felt it was important for industry to be involved in the discussions that arise at conferences like Hard-Wiring Inclusion.

"Something we have learned at Dis-IT, and would not always have the capacity or the resources to deal with, is that we have to help them [industry] to come to conferences like this. They need to know well ahead, and they have to understand the cost-benefit for them to be here. The bottom line is we need industry here. Industry needs to show up. We need to make that a priority."

People with Disabilities group

Roger Jones (World Accessibility) reported back for the disability group. This group recognized that people with disabilities are not a priority with industry. Collectively, the group came up with three ways to get business to produce accessible technology.

First, they decided that there is a communication barrier between industry and the disability community. Jones explained, "there is an onus on us as people with disabilities not to expect industry to come to us with solutions but rather that we have to be proactive." Jones explained that education is needed to bridge this gap. "People with disabilities need to start to understand the language of business and technology and if we could understand that language then we could communicate effectively. Jones stated that:

"We should start training our people in technology as well as in business. It was pointed out that there are standards groups out there but we don't necessarily have people that we can put at the table that can speak regarding technology or business. We can start sending people to business schools or concentrating in those areas again so that we could communicate with industry."

Another technique to increase the development and production of accessible technology identified by this group was to develop relationships with small companies. Jones explained that by "targeting and working with smaller companies that specialize in certain types of technology, then perhaps they would grow with us as a community."

PANEL DISCUSSION: "Moving forward: Mobilizing knowledge for accessible/inclusive ICT"

Moderator: Jennison Asuncion (Adaptech Research Network)

Panelists: Laurie Beachell (Council of Canadians with Disabilities), Gary Birch (Neil Squire Society), Dave Dougall (Research in Motion), Dave Brown (Human Resources and Social Development Canada), Claire Atherton (University of Manitoba - Disability Studies), Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba)

The members of this panel were asked to reflect on concrete ways to move forward what had been established through Dis-IT's research and the discussions that occurred during the conference.

Moderator Jennison Asuncion began the discussion by asking, "given the current context and climate, how do we sustain the momentum that this conference and the Dis-IT research itself has generated?"

Panelist: Laurie Beachell (Council of Canadians with Disabilities)

Laurie Beachell discussed how a federal disability act could help to make accessible and inclusive ICT a reality. He began by emphasizing the challenges of working within the current federal political environment.

"Moving anything forward in the current climate is extremely challenging because it is extremely unpredictable and unclear. As you know, when this new federal government was elected, it had certain priorities. As a community, we did not fit easily within those priorities. But there have been some indicators that they have an interest in disability. The clearest one was in the policy platform that committed to the establishment of a national disability act that would address issues around medical services, transportation, employment, housing, etc."

Beachell noted that there are contradictions in the Harper government's platform statement about a disability act, particularly because it addresses some issues that are within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it was in the government's election platform and Beachell observed, "if there is anything this government wants to do, it wants to say 'we said we would do this and we did it.'"

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) contracted Phyllis Gordon (ARCH Disability Law Centre) to develop a paper on the opportunities and challenges of a federal disability act. Although CCD does not necessarily support a federal disability act, and remains focused on investments in disability-related supports and the reduction of poverty, Beachell explained that a national disability act could be a useful tool in the area of technology.

"It has particular relevance to the whole area of technology and access. We are presenting as options things like a universal design accessibility centre within government that would be the knowledge base on new technologies, on new standards, on the capacity to remove barriers and create full access for people with disabilities. We talk about the creation of a Commissioner on Disability that would have the capacity in the federal government to require accessibility plans from departments, to conduct audits of programs to ensure that they are meeting standards of full inclusion, etc. We talk about a policy centre within government that is focused on the principles of inclusion and accessibility, and how that might have impact interdepartmentally on a variety of initiatives, from IT, telecommunications, broadcasting, transportation, justice, etc. The paper talks about mechanisms like regulation versus guidelines; it talks about mechanisms like omnibus legislation that would redraft legislation that discriminates on the basis of disabilities; and it talks about government procurement policy. So I think there is capacity within a federal disability act, and I think it is strategically smart of the community to be well out in front of the federal government's drafting of a bill. What we have done in this paper is to propose what it might encompass."

Beachell emphasized that a federal disability act would not likely have a major impact on poverty, employment, or the provision of disability supports. But in the area of information and telecommunications technology, the federal government has the ability to exert considerable leadership and to even attach principles and standards of access and inclusion to initiatives which involve transfers of funds from the federal government to provinces and municipalities.

"For example, the federal government is going to dole out a huge pot of money to provinces for establishing new infrastructure networks, everything from roads and sewers to transportation systems to, I assume, information technology capacities. If we are able to establish principles around accessibility as part of the contractual agreements between federal and provincial governments, then we will be able to advance our agenda."

Beachell also noted, "industry needs to engage us in the same way [as government]. Industry needs to find ways to tap the knowledge base that exists within our community and to help build that knowledge base. Frankly if we don't find you doing that, our choice will be to push government to regulate you to do it."

Beachell observed that there were a number of members of the current government who have a personal experience with and interest in disability and accessibility issues.

"The Minister of Finance has a political interest in disability, and I've recently had discussions with him and his officials around this. There are interests of a personal nature at the senior policy level in this government. As you know may know, Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, is now wearing dark glasses in the House of Commons. She has a visual impairment, and she has experienced disability for the first time and it is affecting how she does business. Steven Fletcher has a particular interest: he would like an accessible Blackberry."

In closing, Beachell noted that it is possible other issues will take priority over the development of a federal disability act, and that another federal election will likely occur before the Harper government tables such an act. Therefore, he said, the disability community should focus its energy on all political parties to ensure that each party has a commitment to removing barriers for people with disabilities.

Panelist: Gary Birch (Neil Squire Society)

Gary Birch discussed future possibilities for demonstration or pilot projects that would "show industry that there's a business case [for accessible technology] and demonstrate that there's more than just accessibility for people with disabilities, because when we do a demonstration in a controlled way in a real environment we'll learn all sorts of things that some of us won't even have thought of before going into the demonstration."

To support these types of projects, Birch said, "we're going to need resources to make it happen and I'm very pessimistic about government helping there, so I need to look to industry. I think industry needs to step up and figure out a way to support us to do this. I think they will ultimately be one of the winners, if we do it right."

Demonstration projects like these could also be useful in building relationships and dialogue between the disability community and industry. He said "we need to continue to build our relationships with industry on a cross cutting way and in a unilateral way too, with various industries, so that we're able to understand each other's language and help them build their corporate leadership around accessibility."

Birch also discussed the dissemination of the information and knowledge acquired through the research done in the Dis-IT Research Alliance. He suggested that this dissemination should be very focused on the relevant stakeholders, in the form of "discussion papers on what we've learned that are very focused on industry, which will speak to industry, so they can understand some of the results that we've got and some of the implications that are there for them. In addition, there should be some two way discussions with the disability community to help them understand whatever we've been able to discover and get real time feedback from them as well." He also suggested that accessible government procurement policies have the potential to make "a huge difference."

In closing, Birch argued that there is a need for more grass roots awareness rising among both people with disabilities and the general public. The purpose of this, he said, would be to demonstrate to people the "connections between some of the decisions that are being made politically and how it really affects their lives in the case of access to technology," to raise people's awareness of these issues, and become vocal about their own interests in maintaining access to technology for all.

Panelist: Dave Dougall (Research in Motion)

Dave Dougall agreed with Gary Birch that there is a need to develop communication and relationships between the various stakeholders and in the areas of "awareness and training." In particular, he said the relationship between industry and various stakeholders in the disability community requires further development.

"I think there are several different levels we need to consider here. One is definitely between industry and the disability community and the various stakeholder groups [within the disability community], because you each have unique requirements that will relate directly to the future functionality of the various information technology components. Understanding those better and having that open dialogue goes a long way to doing that."

Dougall said that the two Dis-IT events he attended in 2005 and 2006 were important in helping him establish connections with key representatives from the Canadian disability community.

"They [Dis-IT events] have been incredibly productive for myself in terms of understanding what is happening, as well as meeting a lot of the individuals and players, such that we can have proactive follow up discussions with people such as Henry [Vlug], Jim [Roots], Kurt [Lynn], Phyllis [Gordon], etc. who I had not had an opportunity to meet in person before this conference."

Dougall also suggested having more frequent meetings to continue the relationship building and dialogue begun here. "I know we can't necessarily have everyone join in the same room on a more frequent basis, but maybe having this group meet regionally and come into central sessions, and meeting quarterly or even twice a year might help to share dialoguing and continue the discussions."

Dougall explained that a major way the Dis-IT events had helped him personally is in finding information about the disability community. Previously, he "found it difficult from an industry perspective to know what the organizations were, how to contact them, who the players were, and I think that's something as a take away that we can work together to better understand.".

Dougall also discussed the usefulness of demonstrations like those presented by Gary Birch's research team. He noted that industry needs help from the disability community.

"To bridge the gap in terms of understanding what the end goal is, for example. Some of the elements that really jumped out in Gary's video, like ordering food at a fast food counter, those are things that our engineering department hasn't thought of as a technical challenge that the BlackBerry may be able to help with. But they would love to probably tackle that as an issue, and framing the problem in that context to them can go a long way."

Dougall also noted that understanding innovations, standards, and regulations in other countries is important.

"We need to look at leveraging the efforts of the respective organizations in other countries, where a lot of additional work has already been done. There may be [relevant] guidelines, standards, etc. in place. To go back to the aspect of thinking it through in terms of harmonization of global standards, guidelines and regulations, your needs are not necessarily unique on the Canadian front versus the US front, versus Europe, versus Australia, etc. I think to the extent that we can share and leverage that information more effectively, that's very important because the last thing we want to do in Canada is create a situation in which a particular policy could create a barrier to market entry for new products or force a situation where a certain product may have to be taken off the market due to a particular policy."

Dougall added that this is an important part of understanding the desire of industry to protect innovation and ensure that products are commercially implementable. Understanding this, he said, can help engage industry in dialogue about accessible IT.

Dougall ended his comments by noting the technological changes that are occurring offer major opportunities for people with disabilities.

"Gary [Birch] and I have had several discussions on the concept of developing demonstrations about what is possible and how it can move forward with the technology. Clearly, in my mind, the technology convergence that's happening at this point in time represents incredible promise for the accessibility community. We really need to focus on connecting the dots in terms of understanding what is required and what is possible in bringing those together."

Panelist: Dave Brown (Human Resources and Social Development Canada)

Dave Brown, speaking from the government perspective, noted how important it is to makes sure that meetings like this conference, which often produce a lot of ideas and excitement, actually continue to generate action once everyone has gone back to their work.

Brown discussed the role of the Internet in providing a space to produce knowledge and share information about accessible information technology. He suggested that using a model like Wikipedia, where anyone who has knowledge on a subject may contribute to a constantly expanding bank of knowledge available on the Internet to the public would be useful. This would be a site where "we can post information and then all of us that have expertise and know people can get in and edit and clarify and perhaps that can be a venue where we can all go back to."

He also suggested "an email action list" and encouraged everyone who receives emails on the Dis-IT team and developments in the field to please open and read them, to keep awareness up. If we could all do this, Brown said we could "see if we can keep our individual groups in a way, alive, and this is what we've done to move forward our action list and what have you done, and I think if we can keep doing that and all of us take a little bit of ownership and pride in it, I think we'll go a long way to get some action."

Panelist: Claire Atherton (University of Manitoba Disability Studies)

Claire Atherton presented ideas brainstormed by the students from the University of Manitoba Disability Studies program who attended the conference. She raised four main points about directions for the future. She began by suggesting that a focus on broadening the appeal and relevance of accessible technology by emphasizing that people without disabilities are only temporarily able-bodied would be useful to both advocates in the disability community and in creating a larger market for industry.

Next, Atherton discussed the need to build relationships amongst the stakeholder groups. Like Dave Dougall, she felt meetings like this conference should happen more frequently, and suggested that two stage meetings could be more effective rather than multi-day events.

"Instead of having one two day meeting, it might be more productive to have one meeting to start developing ideas between stakeholders such as the disability community, industry, government and researchers, then a second meeting later where stakeholders could come back together to share concrete ideas about how to make their original concepts a reality."

Atherton also suggested that future research should focus on building on the existing strengths of the disability community by identifying resources that already exist in the community, such as a website for resources, and then building on that. Rather than recreating, again and again, a number of similar websites, it would be better to help establish one comprehensive resource that has already proven to be sustainable.

Atherton's final suggestion was that future research should focus on changing attitudes because that was a repeated theme throughout the discussions at this conference. Research should be done on how to change attitudes in each of the stakeholder groups, including government, industry, the disability community itself as well as the wider public. This kind of research should not just focus on extracting information but should be proactive in helping to change attitudes and develop strategies for doing so.

Panelist: Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba)

During the final session of the May 2005 Dis-IT Research Institute in Winnipeg, Stienstra talked about the "paradoxes" of working in an alliance of diverse stakeholders which have "seemingly oppositional positions that create seemingly unmovable tensions." She felt that significant progress had been occurred since then.

"I went away last year wondering where we would be this year around the paradox between human rights and bottom lines, between industry imperatives, regulation, and community initiatives. I don't feel like we're in a paradox any longer, and I think we've made some real strides in creating a different space to have a conversation between communities that aren't entirely clear about common goals or purposes."

Stienstra explained that the Dis-IT Research Alliance had undergone a mid-term review by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) in early 2006. One of the messages from that review was to ensure that Dis-IT shared the results of its research in creative ways beyond traditional academic methods of sharing information.

"The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is involved with what they call knowledge mobilization, which is a process of not just creating knowledge with stakeholders, but making sure the knowledge is useful and used by a variety of stakeholder groups. SSHRC isn't very good at giving examples of how to do this, so we have to figure it out for our particular case. How do we, in light of the structural constraints, the political environment, the realities of working with industry, with service providers, with government, with being researchers, take what we've learned through this Dis-IT Alliance, through these meetings, through these relationships and make it into something that has use and value to the communities that are represented here?

There needs to be a structural and sustainable response that allows us to continue these conversations. I heard quite consistently that we need to have spaces and places—whether they've virtual, whether they're in person—we need to keep talking. Our conversations have just begun, we're just starting to understand each other's languages, so don't cut off the conversations, don't stop the relationship building."

With Dis-IT moving into its final year, Stienstra pondered where new resources to sustain this work would come from.

"The disability community has no money to do this. They come to the table with a great deal of goodwill and willingness to ante up with expertise and their knowledge, but frankly they don't have the money to bring people, to spend their time…So I'd like to challenge industry, since I think you folks have the most money. I think government has a responsibility here too. I'm not sure if it's Office for Disability Issues or Industry Canada that has a responsibility, but I think there has to be a sustained response to creating and sustaining these relationships."

Stienstra also pointed out the importance of ensuring that the disability community has choice and control of the places and spaces for the purposes of sustaining dialogue.

"Let's make sure that the disability community gets to choose who sits at the table, gets the resources to facilitate their participation, and gets to do this appropriately. Let's not put things on the table and then hand pick who is going to be there. I think it's really important, that notion of the community being able to do what it needs to do and what it thinks is most important."

Stienstra also discussed the pivotal role that researchers can have in creating dialogue and being a part of making change. Future research in this area should follow along the lines set out by the Dis-IT project.

"We don't need research necessarily that speaks abstractly about things, but we need to speak to people's lives and to the needs that are in people's lives. But we also need to understand all of people's lives, not simply little bits of it, and that gets back to some of the notions of how to understand technology and access and inclusion and how it needs to be broader than simple technical access. So I think the role of researchers also needs to be rethought in doing these things."

The political environment is always an important factor in trying to bring about changes. In the context of the current Conservative federal government, Stienstra noted, "the climate right now is not very hospitable to disability rights advocacy and to access and inclusion in general. And I think that may require of many of us, more political activity than we're used to." She pointed out that in this environment the role of regulations and accountability need to be more developed. Currently, she said, "there are regulatory mechanisms, but there's no accountability, and it seems to me if we want accessible and inclusive information technologies on the table, we need to speak to that environment and challenge the people that lead us in that environment."

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD:

Kurt Lynn (Canadian Hard of Hearing Association) offered a number of caveats to the optimism expressed during the panel. First, he said, there were some disability groups, particularly mental health, not represented at this conference whose needs may not have been addressed. Second, he argued, "the concept of universal design is largely mythical. It's a goal for all of us, but if we have to wait for universal design, it's going to be a problem." Lynn stated that he believed the real issue was not a lack of technology, but information and communication.

"There's plenty of technology to go around that will address all our problems. At the end of the day, it's about requirements more than technology, and being able to articulate those requirements. The message I'm taking to our organization is that we have to reinvent ourselves. The onus is on us, in terms of working with industry, to try to show industry why it's desirable to work with us. We have to be able to articulate our needs very specifically, and very meaningfully, in concrete terms that are actionable by industry."

Lynn argued that people with disabilities need to add value to industry. He said this could be done by providing information such as market analysis, requirements that are usable by industry, and making the market accessible to them. If the disability community doesn't do that, he said industry will pursue more available markets before addressing the needs of people with disabilities.

"I think what it boils down to is—my kids used to watch a TV show called The Care Bears. The Care Bears always ended by saying 'to have a friend, you have to be a friend.' I would argue that if we want to partner with industry, to have a partner we have to be a partner. That's the type of reinvention I think the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association is going to have to look toward in terms of working with industry. We don't have obvious resources for doing that, so one of the things we're going to have to do is seek resources to fund our ability to be able to do that. Certainly we can find some of the resources amongst our volunteer organization, but we're also going to have look for patrons – whether they be government or industry – that are willing to fund our ability to do those things."

Bill Abbott (Bell Canada) added to Kurt Lynn's observations by emphasising the need for the disability community to work together to present a more unified, clear and focused case to industry. He said, "If we meet with ten groups and we get 30 different priorities, we walk away thinking, 'they have no idea what they want.' Whereas if you work it out and, as far as possible, aggregate, consolidate and prioritize, you can give a clear message." He used the example of the Canadian Association of the Deaf and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) deferral accounts decision. "They knew the technology they wanted: video relay service. They knew where it was at in the States, that it could be done here. And that made a big difference; that was why video relay was the lead proposal in Bell's deferral account submission to the CRTC."

In addition Abbott suggested that when attending these kinds of events, it is important for people with disabilities to come prepared to deal with the details as well as the principles, and to make a commitment. "Both sides are going to have to make some compromises. Once we've come to a commitment, you've got to be prepared to deliver some value to industry; to go to the public, and to the government and say 'we work together and we're happy with the outcome.'"

Abbott also referred to the students' comments on having meetings with steps built in where ideas can be developed together over time. He said, "that's the way you develop a product, that's the way you develop a marketing plan, this should probably be the same thing." Abbott explained that in meetings between industry and the disability community the strategy has been to "boil the ocean in a single meeting." Instead, he said, "we need a process and we need regular meetings to develop the relationships and the understanding, and to also see things through over a period of time, because they take a period of time."

Dave Dougall expanded on Kurt Lynn's comment about providing market information to industry. He stated that "I think that it's important to recognize that if a market isn't currently supported it is not that we won't do it, but it's important that I can go to my VP and say 'these are the numbers of people's lives that we can impact by doing this.' If it's 1,500, 15,000, or 15 million, that's still a statistic that business people think about, and it frames a context, and that's an important consideration."

Dougall also pointed out that the definition of 'industry' has been somewhat vague and the solutions people with disabilities require will be different depending on the industry, manufacturer, or product. He argued that there are many different types of industries that need to be engaged in this discussion.

"I'm sitting here thinking through the different technological requirements that will be needed to put in place the solutions you're looking for, and they're going to be very different between the wireless manufacturer that I represent versus Bill Abbott as a wire line service provider, versus a wireless carrier, versus a bank, versus medical services, broadcasting, desktop PC's, transportation. All of the elements are not necessarily transferable across the board. The solutions may be unique for each of those different aspects. I think that it's important to frame up in more concrete terms, when you say you're looking for an industry response that you appreciate that there are going to be many different types of industries that will need to be engaged here. I would love to be able to talk to my compatriots from the other industry representatives, but even understanding who those are and which ones we need to be engaged with is an important step."

Dougall also pointed out that Canada does have "some incredibly valuable and leading edge assistive technology companies" that did not attend this conference despite the fact that they were invited, and that hearing their insight would have been valuable for the conference attendees. 

Marcia Cummings (Rogers Communications Inc., Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians) commented that she did not believe it is the responsibility of people with disabilities to beg industry to provide what they need. She argued, "we all have a right to access the same things as everyone else. People with disabilities don't need anything different from everyone else; they simply need to access it differently. The question then, is not what is needed but how to make it happen."

In contrast, Kier Martin (Canadian Association of Independent Living Centre) described how he believed his understanding of his role changed as a result of what he learned at the conference. His work with people in the community should focus more on developing tools and strategies for individuals to articulate their needs directly to service providers rather than having people like himself champion their case. Martin discussed the need to define what is meant by "information technology" and how it is being used among and within disability groups, whether it is web pages, cell phones, etc. He pointed out that technology itself is constantly growing and changing; and this needs to be faced up to by organizations and their accessibility programs and champions.

CLOSING COMMENTS:

Laurie Beachell explained that people with disabilities have had many bad experiences with industry, and may be hesitant about cooperating with industry because it is not a relationship of equals.

"We're talking about a disadvantaged sector of Canadian society, a sector that has known exclusion, isolation, poverty, and stigma. And this whole thing of 'to get a friend you have to be a friend,' I understand that. I've had political advisors telling me, 'you have to be more encompassing, you have to be engaged more, you have to bring everybody into the circle.' Well the circle has been closed for a long time. In other industries that we have worked with for many years, like transportation, banking, etc., we are not seeing advancements; we are seeing more circling of the wagons, greater exclusion, and greater isolation."

Beachell noted that the Canadian disability community has spent six years and "upwards of $250,000" fighting Via Rail's purchase of inaccessible passenger rail cars all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. He also noted that industry often justifies inaccessible technology by arguing that alternatives to the technology-based service are available.

"When we lodge complaints, we end up with industry saying, 'well it's good enough that you can go to the ticket counter at the airport,' or 'it's good enough that you can go to the teller in the bank.' Well it isn't good enough. The rest of the world has access to banking 24 hours a day, and our community has to put up with the hours when tellers are on duty. I'm sorry, [that's not good enough]."

Beachell argued that if the IT and telecommunications industries want to avoid litigation and regulation, they need to work collaboratively with people with disabilities and support that collaboration, as well as recognize the technical limitations of the disability community.

"You have to find a way to work with us, in ways that support us and include us and engage us. We will be good at identifying need; we will not be good at identifying solutions. There are few within our community that have the knowledge and skill on the technology side to be able to put clear solutions on the table, like how you can make the ticket dispenser that gives me a boarding pass accessible to Marcia [Cummings]. Do we need to be a friend to get a friend? Yes. Will you find us collaborative? Yes. Do we have knowledge? Yes. But it has to be supported, and if industry is not coming to the table to engage the disability community, know that our only option is to seek regulation and to seek litigation."

In his final statement, Gary Birch noted that though some may think that the needs of people with disabilities are obvious, his past discussions have shown that many people with disabilities are unclear about what information technology can do for them. He suggested that the key to helping people develop ideas of what technology can do for them is to plant seeds from which people articulate their needs. 

Deborah Stienstra followed this comment with a challenge to the disability community.

"I think we've been pretty forthright with industry and a little softer on government which always surprises me. But I think the community itself needs to remember, as Bill Abbott pointed out, that we need to speak better collectively. We need to understand what we see as priorities and they need to fit into an agenda that we can all move forward...

I actually disagree with Laurie that we don't innovate and that we don't have solutions. I think what I've learned in the last three years of this research project, is that if you want to understand how to deal with inaccessible information technologies, the best people to talk to are those who innovate on a daily basis their access to IT. I think the eLearning initiative around free and inexpensive technology is one of those indicators. I think the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres could take on identifying innovators from the grassroots, people who use technology successfully and share those with industry because industry's solutions are often new versions, new technology, higher sophistication, more complexity, when our innovative strategies in the disability community are lower technology, technology that costs less because we've had to do without high-end expensive modifications. And I think those innovations need to be celebrated more. I don't think they're going to provide all the solutions, but I think they'll teach us that we do have some solutions to some of these issues."

Jennison Asuncion urged all of the conference participants to continue the new avenues of discussion opened up during this conference "whether it's by email or thinking of new sessions and meetings and other ways that we can consult." Asuncion closed the panel discussion by thanking the participants for their candour and the audience for their involvement.

Return to 2006 Hardwiring Inclusion Conference final report home page