Adventure. Build. Freedom.
Advocacy / Canada VRS
Canada’s original Video Relay Service framework was shaped through CRTC proceedings beginning in 2013–2014.
The CRTC decided that Canada would use one national VRS platform and established requirements around accessibility, emergency calling, interoperability, device choice, migration flexibility, reporting and technical standards.
Different organizations and providers supported different models.
The Ontario Association of the Deaf supported at least two VRS providers selected through a competitive process.
The Ontario Video Relay Services Committee supported competition.
Sorenson supported a competitive VRS model similar to the United States.
IVèS argued that Canada should have a limited competitive model rather than an unrestricted U.S.-style market.
The CRTC ultimately required a single national platform, citing efficiency, interoperability and consistent service.
DUN360 believes the regulatory standards should remain strong, but Deaf users and interpreters should have much more influence over which qualified platform is selected.
Their real-world experience should be part of platform evaluation.
DUN360’s proposed process
Competition and consumer choice were already debated during the original Canadian VRS proceeding.
Some participants supported more than one provider or a competitive model.
The CRTC ultimately selected one national platform because of concerns including interoperability, efficiency, migration and consistency of service.
DUN360 does not argue that the CRTC acted improperly.
DUN360 asks whether the balance chosen in 2014 should now be reconsidered using nearly ten years of operational evidence and newer technology.
The issue is not whether the CRTC should disappear from the process.
DUN360 supports strong CRTC requirements for:
The CRTC should set and enforce the standards.
But users should have a stronger role in evaluating which qualified technology best meets those standards.
DUN360 believes Canada should now ask whether the framework chosen in 2014 still serves Deaf users best.
Technology has changed.
Modern communication platforms can provide:
The question should not only be:
“Which platform meets the minimum technical requirements?”
It should also be:
“Which qualified platform do Deaf users and interpreters find most accessible, reliable, modern and useful?”
Platforms worth evaluating include:
These platforms should be compared using measurable criteria such as:
This list is not a ranking or endorsement. Any future option would need to demonstrate that it meets Canadian requirements. Detailed comparison information is available through CDTA.
Canada VRS exists to provide accessible telecommunications for Deaf and signing Canadians.
VRS is funded through Canada’s telecommunications contribution system and administered within a CRTC-approved framework.
DUN360 believes users should therefore be able to understand:
Funding transparency matters.
But accessibility outcomes matter too.
DUN360 supports:
CRTC sets and enforces the standards.
Qualified providers prove they can meet them.
Deaf users and interpreters test the platforms.
Public performance data is published.
Community evaluation meaningfully influences the final selection.
This is not removing regulatory oversight.
It is adding meaningful Deaf-user power to accessibility decision-making.
If you are a Canada VRS user, interpreter, Deaf association, accessibility organization or stakeholder, your experience matters.
CDTA is preparing to collect structured feedback about platform reliability, features, user experience and future platform preferences. Explore the comparison information and participation preview using the links below.
Explore the details with CDTA
DUN360 is a public advocacy voice. Visit the Canadian Deaf Telecom Alliance (CDTA) for platform comparisons, surveys, detailed records and CRTC/CAV transparency information.
CDTA’s experience-sharing page is currently a preview; experience submissions are not open yet.
AI Box
This section is active as a visible AI box placeholder. It is ready for future AI insights such as journey summaries, energy trend notes, and practical next-step suggestions.