Archived - Final Report on the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games

Preparatory phase plagued by problems

Generally speaking, the French language enjoyed good visibility during the Olympic and Paralympic Games; however, the Games also had failures that overshadowed its successes. Before addressing this aspect, it is important to examine the numerous difficulties related to the use of French that marked the preparatory phase of the Games.

The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC), Canadian Heritage (in particular, the Department’s 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat), the cities of Vancouver and Whistler, Public Works and Government Services Canada’s Translation Bureau, and a number of other federal institutions all made significant efforts to fulfill the commitment to present bilingual Games.

Nevertheless, to ensure that the requirements would be met and that Canadian linguistic duality would be properly reflected, interventions and close monitoring was required from a number of parties, including the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the Canadian Foundation for Cross-Cultural Dialogue, Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, members of the parliamentary standing committees on official languages, and senior public servants of the Government of Canada. Moreover, Canadian Heritage and the Prime Minister’s personal representative for official languages, who was also a member of VANOC’s Board of Directors, organized activities to raise awareness and ensure follow-up among federal institutions in the fall of 2009. The parliamentary standing committees, particularly the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, also discussed the Games in the fall of 2009 as part of their deliberations.

Most of the difficulties encountered were due to VANOC officials having insufficient knowledge or a misunderstanding of the official languages requirements, to which they were bound by the Multiparty Agreement, and of the need for the Olympic and Paralympic Games to properly reflect the presence and contribution of both English- and French-speaking Canadians. This meant that official languages were not always given priority. It seems that Canadian Heritage and VANOC had different interpretations of the language requirements, and these differences became increasingly clear in the months leading up to the Games. This highlighted the need for federal institutions to ensure that the organizers shared a common understanding and interpretation of the requirements. Canadian Heritage monitored the official languages situation within VANOC more closely in order to target potential problems and identify challenges that required federal government intervention during the six to eight months prior to the Games.

Because translation and interpretation resources had not been adequately evaluated, a lot of energy was expended to rectify the situation in the few months before the Games. VANOC’s financial difficulties in the summer of 2009 led to a reassessment of certain expenses related to official languages requirements, such as the translation of manuals and athletes’ biographies. VANOC officials were, however, committed to respecting—and even surpassing—all the requirements set forth in the Multiparty Agreement.

Broadcasting the Games on television in English and French across the country was a crucial issue. The consortium formed by CTVglobemedia and Rogers, with the participation of RDS, RIS and V, did not allow all French-speaking Canadians to watch the Games in their language. Long, sometimes arduous negotiations resolved the situation just before the start of the Games, thanks to the intervention of the Cable Public Affairs Channel and the collaboration of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

Games’ success stories eclipsed by failures

The Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games were a great success from the point of view of their organization and the performance of Canada’s athletes, who roused Canadians’ sense of unity. Furthermore, the fact that many English- and French-speaking athletes were bilingual and proud to be able to express themselves in their second language is an encouraging sign of progress for linguistic duality.

One of the greatest successes of the Games was VANOC’s communications with the public (e.g., its website was in both official languages). Bilingual signage of VANOC, Vancouver and Whistler, as well as of many sponsors, was a tangible expression of Canada’s linguistic duality in the Games’ host cities. In almost all the competitions, announcements and commentaries were in both official languages, highlighting Canada’s bilingualism for both the spectators on site and for television viewers around the world. The volunteers also contributed to the success of the Games through their enthusiasm, their friendly welcome and their provision of services in both official languages. The French language was given the proper prominence at the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games and at the opening and closing ceremonies of the Paralympic Games.

The cultural performances also helped to highlight the richness and diversity of the English and French components of the Canadian identity. The Place de la Francophonie, a Francophone cultural showcase organized in parallel with the Olympic Games and located in the centre of Vancouver on Granville Island, focused attention on the vitality and diversity of Francophone culture in British Columbia, Canada and abroad.

Unfortunately, there were failures that sometimes overshadowed the Games’ shining moments. For example, the French language was not prominent enough in the countdown ceremony that took place in Vancouver in February 2009, nor at many of the stops on the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Torch Relay; there were not enough bilingual volunteers at some venues; some unilingual volunteers did not seek help from a bilingual colleague; and it was very hard to find a printed French version of the Vancouver 2010 Official Souvenir Program on site, while the English version was widely available.

However, the element that undoubtedly eclipsed the Games’ successes was the opening ceremony, in which there was an obvious disparity between the representations of English and French in the cultural component of the event. This ceremony was seen by hundreds of millions of people across the globe and constituted an unparalleled chance to present Canada to the world. VANOC missed a golden opportunity to show that linguistic duality is an intrinsic part of the Canadian identity.

Of the 46 admissible complaints submitted to the Office of the Commissioner during the Olympic Games, most (38) were about the opening ceremony. The rest of the complaints concerned other aspects relating to the obligations of Canadian Heritage, through VANOC, except for one regarding the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Three complaints were submitted during the Paralympic Games.

Key institutions that provided services during the Games

The Commissioner felt that it was extremely important for the various federal institutions providing services during the Olympic and Paralympic Games to ensure that linguistic duality was reflected as a brand image of Canadian identity, given that a large number of visitors from Canada and abroad would be in contact with these institutions.

The Commissioner asked 11 federal institutions to provide him with reports on their performance, including the challenges they faced and the lessons they learned during the event, which they did. Most of the institutions felt that they had risen to the challenge of providing visitors with services in both official languages and that they had integrated these services into their planning for the 2010 Games. However, in certain cases, this integration seemed to have been done after the Office of the Commissioner’s awareness campaign and the interventions of other key parties, particularly the parliamentary standing committees. The performance evaluations seemed to indicate that a number of institutions adequately monitored the availability of their services in both official languages. In addition, some institutions, such as the Vancouver Airport Authority and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, were able to target areas that will need improvement. The responses of these organizations show that they are aware of the difficulties they encountered and will hopefully take corrective measures that will prove effective in the future. In summary, only certain institutions felt that it was necessary to monitor the availability of services in both official languages in order to ensure that visitors were always offered service in the official language of their choice. These institutions recognize the importance of having accountability mechanisms to measure public satisfaction.

Overall, federal institutions recognized that they needed to increase their bilingual capacity for major events like the Olympic Games. Canada Post, Service Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority showed that they could, when necessary, go beyond the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations by offering services in both official languages at offices that were not designated bilingual.

Preparations for the Games were marked by a number of failures and weaknesses, which required sustained interventions from a number of individuals and groups. In general, however, linguistic duality was reflected during the Games and contributed to Canada’s prestige abroad.

Context

This section analyzes whether the implementation of Annex A of the Multiparty Agreement and the language clauses in the contribution agreements posed problems, and whether these clauses were clear and comprehensive. It also assesses the degree to which VANOC officials understood the official languages requirements.

Under Rule 24 of the Olympic Charter, English and French are the official languages of the International Olympic Committee, whose headquarters are in Lausanne, Switzerland. In the case of divergence between the English and French texts, the French text shall prevail unless expressly provided otherwise in writing. Olympic Games host cities and countries must respect both languages of the Olympic Movement in Games-related activities.

Given that Canada’s official languages are English and French and that the Government of Canada made a significant financial contribution to the Games, the federal government had to ensure that VANOC complied with the provisions of the Official Languages Act. To do this, Government of Canada representatives required that official languages provisions be included in Annex A of the Multiparty Agreement signed in November 2002 between the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver, the Resort Municipality of Whistler, the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee and VANOC.

Annex A of the Multiparty Agreement detailed VANOC's commitments with regard to offering the general public its numerous services in both official languages. It also established the necessity of offering services in English and French to athletes, trainers, officials and members of the delegations. In order to meet these requirements, VANOC had to ensure that there was sufficient bilingual capacity among its staff and volunteers.

VANOC was not a federal institution subject to the Official Languages Act within the meaning of section 3 of the Act, but the Multiparty Agreement between the Games’ partners, and the contribution agreements signed by VANOC and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, on behalf of the Government of Canada, meant that VANOC had specific language obligations. Because it was responsible for federal coordination with respect to the Games, Canadian Heritage, which is subject to the Official Languages Act, was responsible for ensuring that VANOC fulfilled the language requirements of Annex A.

Although the only official language of the Paralympic Movement is English, the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games had the same language obligations as the Olympic Winter Games because both Games involved a significant logistical and financial contribution from the Government of Canada and both Games were organized by VANOC. Interestingly, the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games were the first Winter Games to be staged jointly in their entirety, as prescribed by the agreement between the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee. Therefore, the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games were the first fully bilingual Paralympic Games in English and French.

Because Canadian Heritage contributed financially to the opening and closing ceremonies, the Olympic Torch Relay, the Cultural Olympiad, the Vancouver and Whistler celebration sites, the Place de la Francophonie and the digital album project (CODE), it included language clauses in all of its contribution agreements.

Observations

By requesting and ensuring that language requirements were incorporated into the Multiparty Agreement and that language clauses were included in the contribution agreements for a number of activities, the Government of Canada took an innovative step, as this was the first time in the history of the Olympic Games that a government had successfully achieved this. It showed that linguistic duality is an intrinsic value of Canadian society that needs to be reflected in a major international event. As long as the requirements were respected, the Games could significantly contribute to presenting the world with a bilingual image of Canada.

The provisions of Annex A covered the vast majority of the elements involved in the organization of the Olympic and Paralympic Games: signage, website, official programs, communications with the public and the media, tickets, recruitment of volunteers, services for athletes and officials, the opening and closing ceremonies, and the cultural activities organized before and during the Games.

As indicated by the Office of the Commissioner in its December 2008 preliminary report and September 2009 follow-up report, the absence of clauses dealing with certain important elements or the lack of precision in certain clauses in the Agreement led to conflicting interpretations of the spirit of the Official Languages Act. For example, there was no requirement regarding the promotional activities of many of the sponsors.

VANOC could not impose language requirements on international sponsors, as agreements with them were the responsibility of the International Olympic Committee. However, according to the observations of the Office of the Commissioner’s staff, a number of international sponsors, such as Coca-Cola, Samsung, Panasonic and McDonald’s, produced English and French signage, thereby helping to create a bilingual ambience in downtown Vancouver.

The national sponsors, who reported to VANOC, produced signage that was almost exclusively in English. Based on the experience of the Office of the Commissioner’s staff who were on site, only the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Royal Bank of Canada had signage in English and French. In the absence of language requirements, VANOC and Canadian Heritage should have been more active in raising awareness among the national sponsors of how important it was that their communications with the public be representative of the two official language communities.

According to the Office of the Commissioner, the provision in Annex A relating to third parties was too weak—it stated that the organizing committee “shall, to the extent reasonably possible, ensure the service provider maintains [the] level of standard”^{Footnote 5} that would otherwise have been provided by the organizing committee. This vague wording fails to explain that the organizing committee, which is subject to language obligations, must ensure that the third party acting on its behalf also meets these obligations just as strictly. Future agreements need to make third-party obligations much clearer.

Certainly the most problematic part of Annex A was clause 1.k) on the opening and closing ceremonies. As explained in section 4, the prominence of the French language in the cultural component of the opening ceremony was insufficient. Clause 1.k) stated that the opening and closing ceremonies “will be in both official languages and the national anthem will be sung in its bilingual version; the program will include participants and events which represent both official language groups.”^{Footnote 6} Despite the fact that Annex A was repeated in its entirety in the contribution agreements with Canadian Heritage, in particular in the agreement for the opening ceremony, and that the performance indicators were included, this agreement did not ensure adequate representation of Canada’s two official language communities and thus the country’s linguistic duality was not properly reflected.

Practical difficulties arose with a number of other elements. In the spring of 2009, VANOC had produced the prototypes for the signage, but the format was not the same for the two languages: the English was in bold lettering while the French was in a light typeface. Following the intervention of the Commissioner of Official Languages in July 2009, VANOC changed the format to ensure that the English and French were given equal prominence. Also in the spring of 2009, during a number of discussions with VANOC representatives, Canadian Heritage had pointed out that their initial way of presenting the two languages did not meet the requirements of the Multiparty Agreement.

A person directly involved in organizing the Games and who was interviewed for this report also found that some of the provisions were unclear. For example, clause 1.b) stated that VANOC was to hire a languages services coordinator for a reasonable period prior to the Games. What does a “reasonable period prior to the Games” mean? Clause 1.c) stipulated with regard to bilingualism that there should be “sufficient capacity …among its employees and volunteers.” Once again, the clause could have been clearer. This person suggested that the clause should have specified the proportion of the staff and volunteers who should be bilingual.

Canadian Heritage included the language clauses from Annex A in the contribution agreements for the activities to which it contributed financially—the opening and closing ceremonies, the Olympic Torch Relay, the Cultural Olympiad, the Vancouver and Whistler celebration sites, the Place de la Francophonie and the digital album project (CODE). Ignoring for a moment the agreement regarding the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, which is dealt with in section 4, the language clauses of the contribution agreements are generally clearer and more comprehensive. This is particularly the case for the agreements relating to the celebration sites. The agreement relating to the Cultural Olympiad, although fairly complete, did not state that the obligation to present participants and activities representing the two official languages groups applied to both the spoken and visual components of the presentation.

Lessons learned

Canadian Heritage, acting on behalf of the Government of Canada, clearly showed its commitment to linguistic duality by incorporating official languages requirements into the Multiparty Agreement as well as the contribution agreements. In addition to strengthening the position of French in the Olympic Movement, this commitment resulted in the first fully bilingual Paralympic Games in English and French.

The limited understanding of the Agreement and the lack of clarity in certain areas caused problems, and improvements will need to be made to any future agreements.

Although they had little experience with and knowledge of official languages at the beginning of their mandate, overall, VANOC officials were generally open-minded, which enabled them to commit to meeting the planned language requirements. However, they did have trouble understanding the scope of these requirements in certain cases. Discussions with Canadian Heritage, the parliamentary standing committees on official languages and the Commissioner of Official Languages helped to clarify expectations, which was reflected in all of the various components of the event, with the notable and unfortunate exception of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.

While recognizing the considerable efforts by VANOC officials to apply the provisions of Annex A, certain interviewees and representatives of French-speaking community organizations indicated that it would have been easier and more instinctive to show Canada’s Francophone character in all components of the Games if more VANOC officials had been fluent in both official languages. Others suggested that organizers of future major events who have a limited understanding of the meaning of linguistic duality should spend some time among the other official language community. In the opinion of the Office of the Commissioner, a good understanding of linguistic duality is one of the leadership qualities for executives of major events.

Future outlook

Incorporating language requirements into the agreements between Olympic Games partners and language clauses into the contribution agreements could be used as a model for other organizing committees for national or international sporting events.

The provisions of the agreements that cover third parties should clearly reflect the fact that the organizing committee, having language obligations, must ensure that third parties acting on its behalf also meet these same obligations. It is important to establish regular accountability mechanisms.

Canadian Heritage and central agencies such as the Treasury Board Secretariat need to monitor and supervise the organizing committee closely to ensure that its executives fully understand the scope of linguistic duality. To help members of the organizing committee understand the meaning of linguistic duality, it would be useful if the language requirements had a preamble on official languages that described the principles and objectives of this core Canadian value. Awareness-raising sessions on Canada’s linguistic duality, including the situation of official language communities, would also help improve understanding. Moreover, an optimal number of people who are fluent in both French and English should be chosen to fill a certain number of positions at key levels.

Context

In an organization as big as VANOC, funded in part by the Government of Canada, efficient internal and external accountability mechanisms are essential for achieving official languages objectives.

The effectiveness of these mechanisms is all the more important when many players are involved, such as the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee, the Government of Canada through Canadian Heritage, the Government of British Columbia, the host cities, French-speaking community organizations, partners and sponsors.

Observations

Starting in 2007, Canadian Heritage began receiving quarterly progress reports from VANOC on the official languages situation. These reports were mostly descriptive at the beginning, consisting of a list of activities that had been completed, but over time they improved, tying in more closely with the requirements of Annex A. Added to this were performance indicators and challenges to overcome, all of which helped the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat to keep up to date with issues to be discussed with VANOC or within the Department.

The accountability mechanism for VANOC’s Executive Committee and Board of directors also improved over time. While official languages issues were not regularly on meeting agendas at first, by 2009 they were an established point of discussion. This practice should have been in place from the start.

Following a recommendation from the Commissioner in his December 2008 report, the Advisory Committee on Official Languages was created by VANOC’s Board of Directors at the end of the year. Its objective was to examine strategic official languages issues and to report to VANOC’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee. The Advisory Committee began slowly, but then met five or six times. According to those involved that the Office of the Commissioner met with, the Committee played a key role when the time came to support VANOC and offer guidance in dealing with important issues, thanks to the credibility and authority of its members. The Advisory Committee examined issues such as the following: the bilingual capacity of the volunteers, signage, the Place de la Francophonie and the opening and closing ceremonies.

Within VANOC, the responsibility for implementing the requirements of the Multiparty Agreement fell to the senior managers of the various sectors. They were supported by VANOC’s Official Languages Function, a team of three people whose director reported to the Senior Vice-President, Human Resources, Sustainability and International Client Services.

At the start, this director was also responsible for human resources. Many people who were interviewed before and after the Games mentioned the commitment, drive and determination of the members of this team, particularly the director. The Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique praised the team’s work on the relationships established between VANOC and British Columbia’s Francophone community.

Most of the interviewees indicated that the Official Languages Function did not have sufficient authority to exercise enough influence over the senior managers in the various sectors, a problem exacerbated by the fact that several of these managers needed a higher level of support in order to properly understand the official languages requirements. The Official Languages Function should also have been established from the start and should have had more resources. Some interviewees indicated to the Office of the Commissioner that the responsibility for translation, which was transferred from communications to the official languages team in 2009, should have been under the Official Languages Function from the start in order to better plan the translation needs and necessary resources.

At Canadian Heritage, there was no formal monitoring report mechanism. The Games Federal Secretariat, which included two full-time employees working on language issues, regularly discussed official languages with VANOC. Official languages were on the meeting agendas of the various committees under the Framework of Federal Coordination. Official languages also remained a permanent discussion point on the agenda of all meetings of the Executive Committee, chaired by the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage. The representatives of the Games Federal Secretariat and several other branches of Canadian Heritage devoted a lot of time and energy to the Games’ language issues.

Canadian Heritage’s approach was to guide and support VANOC officials, believing this to be a more effective way of convincing them. Representatives of French-speaking communities and other interviewees would have liked Canadian Heritage to take a stricter and more proactive approach, given that it was the representative of the Government of Canada and, as such, should have ensured that the value and image of linguistic duality would be fully reflected in all Games-related activities. The size of the Government of Canada’s financial contribution was another argument for being more exacting. The interviewees highlighted the fact that several issues that were slow to be resolved (e.g., signage, translation and the bilingual capacity of volunteers) would doubtless have been resolved more quickly with a firmer approach. Some people indicated that Canadian Heritage should have done better in embracing its role of promoting Canadian culture, a key element of which is the fact that two languages are spoken throughout the country—English and French.

A number of those interviewed emphasized that, for a major event like this in the future, a detailed plan or a set of specifications for official languages should be established from the outset, should include estimates of the necessary resources, and should be incorporated into the business plan. Without specifying any particular means, the Office of the Commissioner feels that the most important thing is to have a planning process that takes official languages into consideration from the outset and monitors the issue throughout implementation.

Lessons learned

Despite a genuine willingness among most of the VANOC officials, the integration of official languages was not a natural reflex, which meant that a number of issues were not resolved until late in the process. The officials had not grasped the extent of the language requirements and had not allocated sufficient resources to them.

Furthermore, the way Canadian Heritage or another mandated federal organization monitors an organizing committee should be rethought. The manner in which the federal government monitored VANOC’s implementation of Annex A was inadequate until the summer of 2009 because the Games Federal Secretariat, reporting to Canadian Heritage, was not proactive enough when dealing with VANOC and contented itself with pointing out the problems it observed. This created a significant backlog that had to be caught up during the months preceding the Games.

Some interviewees said that the Advisory Committee on Official Languages could have played a more decisive role if it had been established earlier. In their opinion and in that of the Office of the Commissioner, it could have guided VANOC and helped it to deal with certain issues more swiftly, which would have avoided the need to catch up and avoided the debates in the last few months leading up to the Games.

Establishing the VANOC Official Languages Function contributed to the Games’ success. However, its effectiveness was hampered by its limited authority and insufficient resources. The Function was established late and should have dealt with the translation issue right from the start.

Future outlook

VANOC and the Government of Canada took innovative steps in creating the Advisory Committee on Official Languages and the Official Languages Function. The Office of the Commissioner feels that these two organizational mechanisms could be used again for national or international events to which the Government of Canada contributes financially. These mechanisms should be established at the beginning of the event’s planning stage and include representatives from official language communities. Representatives of national and local French-speaking organizations—or English-speaking organizations, if the event is taking place in Quebec—should be encouraged to participate in order to benefit from a variety of perspectives.

When the Government of Canada makes a significant financial contribution to a major event that spotlights Canada’s image, the organizing committee must include official languages in its planning from the start, and the government must continuously monitor the way in which the committee reflects linguistic duality in the preparatory activities for the event and during the event itself.

Major national or international events are golden opportunities to showcase Canada’s linguistic duality, which is at the heart of the Canadian identity. The Government of Canada must closely monitor all activities to ensure that this image is reflected in all aspects of the event.

Context

The Olympic and Paralympic Games are primarily a coming-together of athletes who participate in competition to realize their full potential. They are also a wonderful opportunity to show the host city, the country and the rest of the world the culture, history and essential nature of the country. In the case of the 2010 Winter Games, this was done mainly through the Cultural Olympiad, the Olympic and Paralympic torch relays and the opening and closing ceremonies.

The Cultural Olympiad consisted of a series of three festivals (over three years) of popular and fine art that were held in the Vancouver-Whistler corridor as part of the Games.

The Vancouver 2010 Olympic Torch Relay garnered a lot of attention. The torch was lit in Olympia, Greece, on October 26, 2009. Once on Canadian soil, it travelled approximately 45,000 kilometres in 106 days, making it the longest relay in Olympic history. The torch was carried by some 12,000 Canadians and arrived in Vancouver on February 12, 2010. The torch travelled through 190 localities, where celebrations were organized.

The Opening Ceremony of the XXI Olympic Winter Games was held on February 12, 2010, in Vancouver’s BC Place Stadium. The ceremony lasted three hours and included celebrations of our country’s history as well as standard Olympic protocol. The ceremony ended when the Olympic Cauldron was lit. The Games’ closing ceremony took place on February 28, 2010, in the same location. The closing ceremony also included standard protocol and performances that highlighted Canada’s distinctive character.

Observations

Lessons learned

The cultural component of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games took place almost exclusively in English. Clearly the approach will need to be reviewed in the future as those in charge did not fully grasp the need for linguistic duality to be fully represented in an event of this importance. The members of the ceremony’s organizing committee insisted that the Francophone presence should be measured not only by what was heard in French, but also by the contribution of French-speaking designers, choreographers, decorators, dancers and musicians. This is a very narrow interpretation of clause 1.k) of the Multiparty Agreement. Future agreements should contain a version of this clause that is much clearer and more explicit.

According to Canadian Heritage’s information, an Angus Reid poll showed that only 50% of Canadian respondents and 41% of respondents in Quebec stated that the proportion of French language and culture in the ceremony was just about right. In the opinion of the Office of the Commissioner, this is a poor result for an event of this size. It seems that the people in charge of the opening and closing ceremonies did not fully understand Canada’s historical, political and social context, of which linguistic duality and French-speaking culture are essential components, nor were they sufficiently aware of the cultural sensibilities of the two official language communities.

The Commissioner acknowledges the complexity of organizing this kind of celebration and the limited influence of Canadian Heritage over the content of the opening ceremony. However, he finds it deplorable that the language clauses inserted by Canadian Heritage into the contribution agreement were not more explicit regarding the presence of French in the cultural component of the opening ceremony and the adequate representation of official language communities.

The controversy over the opening ceremony will doubtless alert federal authorities to the importance of maintaining control over the balance between English and French in the opening and closing ceremonies of major events. They should review the standard official languages provisions concerning these ceremonies to ensure greater transparency and identify any gaps so as to be able to take any necessary corrective measures.

The establishment of a designated site for Francophone culture during the Games was a very positive initiative for promoting the French aspect of linguistic duality and sharing it with thousands of people. It also increased the visibility of local Francophone communities.

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation has informed the Office of the Commissioner that French will also feature more prominently in the programming of events taking place on Granville Island for Canada Day and other festivals. This is one of the Games’ legacies for the Vancouver region’s French-speaking community. According to some people interviewed by the Office of the Commissioner, the flip side of the coin is that the Place de la Francophonie did not produce spin-offs or leave a tangible legacy for British Columbia’s French-speaking community, for example, in the form of permanent facilities.

Future outlook

The Government of Canada should, through Canadian Heritage or any other organization representing it, include explicit language clauses in its contribution agreements that clearly define the expectations regarding the balance of content between the two official languages in the spoken components (for example, in speeches, songs and poems); ensure that Government of Canada representatives who fully understand the scope of linguistic duality sit on the committee responsible for organizing the opening and closing ceremonies; maintain control over the balance between the two official languages; and diligently monitor the situation.

The idea of including the official language minority community by creating a cultural showcase is certainly to be encouraged. The Place de la Francophonie was a success, but other initiatives are possible, as long as they are given high visibility.

Context

Communications with the public and other client groups are an essential aspect when it comes to respecting the public’s right to be served in the official language of their choice and reflecting Canada’s bilingualism.

The main factors to be considered are signage, information and promotional documents, websites and information communicated orally or visually, such as results and commentary.

In order to successfully perform this enormous task, sufficient high-quality translation and interpretation resources were required.

The cooperation of the province and the cities of Vancouver and Whistler was also important in order to create a bilingual atmosphere through signage, documentation and services.

Observations

Lessons learned

To be able to present an image of a bilingual country through signage, as did these Games, the cooperation of the host cities and the sponsors is needed in addition to the work of the organizing committee, which produced excellent results. The same is true for the services offered to the public by the host cities.

VANOC showed that it was possible to update a website by simultaneously posting English and French versions of Web pages. This is an important lesson, as the Internet is increasingly becoming the general public’s preferred source of information.

Overall, VANOC was very successful in providing information to the public in both official languages (e.g., information documents, athlete introductions, event results, commentary) and in effectively communicating with the specialized groups such as the media. However, it needed additional help from the Government of Canada to produce all the French documentation that it had already committed to producing. This eleventh-hour bailout should not become a precedent for future events.

Future outlook

It is essential that clauses applying to national sponsors be included in the language requirements for major events so that Canada’s linguistic duality is reflected more completely. International sponsors should be informed of Canada’s language situation and of the importance of respecting official languages requirements. Some of the international sponsors of the Vancouver Games showed that this was entirely possible.

VANOC’s practices regarding communications with the public in both languages, particularly via the website and through announcements and commentary during the competitions, could serve as an example for other major events in the future.

Organizers of future events could also draw inspiration from the collaborative model of the host cities of Vancouver and Whistler. Even though they have no formal official languages obligations, these cities still effected measures to provide service to the public in both languages—by making parts of their websites available in French and by ensuring that there were bilingual volunteers and information service employees.

The Office of the Commissioner considers translation and interpretation services to be essential because they determine the extent to which event organizers can offer pertinent and high-quality information to visitors in both official languages simultaneously. Therefore, the cost for this should be included in the Government of Canada’s base contribution to the organizing committee. During major events, a partner should be in place right from the start with the necessary expertise and capacity to handle a high volume of translation work within short deadlines, like the Translation Bureau was able to do at the Vancouver Games.

In the future, any organization responsible for a major event should require that the real-time display boards (such as those that display the results of the competition) be able to present information in both official languages.

Context

Volunteers were at the heart of communications with the general public and the other specialized groups, such as the media, athletes and dignitaries. They were the ones who guided people at the sites, answered their questions and gave them instructions. VANOC succeeding in recruiting 20,000 volunteers, of whom 14% to 15% (almost 3,000 people) were bilingual, according to the figures provided before the Games. All the interviewees emphasized the enthusiasm and helpfulness of the volunteers who contributed to the success of the Games. They represented the face of Canada, including its linguistic duality.

Observations

Being able to recruit enough bilingual volunteers was a source of concern before the Games for the Commissioner of Official Languages, parliamentarians, Canadian Heritage and organizations representing French-speaking communities. The fact that the primary source of bilingual individuals was on the other side of the country and the fact that the volunteers had to find their own accommodations and pay for their own travel made it more difficult to recruit bilingual volunteers.

To increase the number of bilingual volunteers, VANOC toured eastern Canada in the spring of 2009. The Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique also contributed actively to finding bilingual volunteers. The Games Federal Secretariat discussed the deployment of bilingual volunteers with VANOC in the fall of 2009 and also held discussions with VANOC to ensure that they were ready to address certain situations, such as attrition. A roving team was created to compensate for the predicted attrition rate of 30% among the volunteers, thereby fulfilling one of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his September 2009 follow-up report.

As VANOC did not provide a report after the Games, we do not know the actual number of bilingual volunteers who worked during the Games. VANOC said that when it was checking the language abilities of the volunteers at the time of their accreditation, it realized that some 400 volunteers who had not been identified as bilingual could communicate in both languages. It gave them each a “Bonjour” badge. Employees of the Office of the Commissioner who were on site reported several instances where bilingual volunteers had unfortunately not been assigned to duties requiring bilingualism.

VANOC included some standard phrases into the volunteers’ pocket guide to enable them to provide basic service to visitors in French and allow them to seek help from a bilingual colleague. The effectiveness of this initiative has not been assessed, however.

VANOC assigned more bilingual volunteers to strategic locations such as the media centre, accreditation, and information booths for athletes and dignitaries. The proportion of these bilingual volunteers was normally around 30% to 50%. VANOC also tried to ensure that there were bilingual volunteers in certain specific circumstances. For example, the families of Quebec athletes were welcomed and accompanied to the buses by bilingual volunteers. VANOC volunteers at the airport were also able to offer service in both languages.

Front-line services provided by volunteers were available in English and in French in almost all cases, but there were exceptions in certain places, as mentioned below. The fact that the bilingual volunteers wore an easily visible badge saying “Bonjour” helped to identify them.

Because bilingual volunteers were assigned to strategic locations, there were sometimes none at other sites where there could be contact with the public. The security check points, supervised by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, had VANOC volunteers but were not always able to offer bilingual services. When an employee from the Office of the Commissioner visited the Olympic Cauldron, service in French was very limited. The spectator marshall greeted the crowd in English and French, but the instructions guiding the Spectators were in English only. None of the on-site volunteers had a “Bonjour” badge and all interaction with the volunteers was in English. When an employee of the Office of the Commissioner went through the security check at the Pacific Coliseum, none of the volunteers present was able to provide service in French.

Most of the unilingual volunteers followed the established procedure and directed French-speaking members of the public to bilingual colleagues. In the experience of the Office of the Comissioner’s staff on site, about three quarters of the unilingual volunteers did this willingly. However, some volunteers apologized for their unilingualism without seeking assistance, or worse still, simply ignored the question. Canadian Heritage representatives also mentioned that some volunteers had not followed the established system. Two interviewees who attended the Paralympic Games said that they were able to receive services in French and that the number of bilingual volunteers seemed sufficient.

The City of Vancouver was responsible for the celebration sites; however, services to the public had to be offered in both languages because Canadian Heritage had contributed funding for these sites. City volunteers wore a “Demandez-moi” badge to indicate that they spoke French. There again, while there were some volunteers at the downtown Vancouver celebration site who could speak French, there were none on the two occasions when employees of the Office of the Commissioner visited. At the celebration site in Yaletown, Vancouver, no effort was made to try to find a bilingual volunteer. Unfortunately, these situations experienced by the Office of the Commissioner’s staff reflected negatively on the work of the volunteers who did call a bilingual colleague when necessary in order to ensure that visitors could enjoy service in French.

Employees of the Office of the Commissioner who were on site at the Olympic Games found that the Canada Pavilion provided services in both official languages, and that the exhibitions in the Pavilion were bilingual. The efforts of certain provinces—like Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec—should be highlighted, as they also provided services in both English and French in their pavilions.

Lessons learned

The many bilingual volunteers, clearly identified with a “Bonjour” badge, endeavoured to present a bilingual image of Canada. It is clear that VANOC invested a lot of effort in recruiting bilingual volunteers, notably by extending its recruitment zone to eastern Canada.

VANOC was right to assign bilingual volunteers to strategic locations, but this left gaps at other points of contact with the public. Several people said that VANOC needed more bilingual volunteers. Furthermore, some of the unilingual volunteers were clearly not made sufficiently aware of the importance of finding a bilingual colleague to serve French-speaking clients. Canadian Heritage representatives said that they had asked VANOC, without success, to provide better training on active offer of service.

Future outlook

VANOC’s efforts to recruit and deploy bilingual volunteers were a good starting point and could be used as a model for hiring bilingual people for other international events. Extending the recruitment zone is very important when local pool bilingual resources are not sufficient.

Bilingual staff and volunteers must be recruited in sufficient numbers to cover all points of contact with the public. Proper training must be provided on the active offer of service in both languages, including instructions for unilingual volunteers to refer to a bilingual colleague. Official language communities should be targeted as a primary source of bilingual volunteers.

Context

Broadcasting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in both official languages across the country was a major issue for French-speaking communities. Resolving this issue was like trying to run an obstacle course.

The International Olympic Committee granted broadcasting rights for the Games in February 2005 to Canada’s Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium, which comprised CTVglobemedia and Rogers, and included the participation of RDS, RIS and V to cover the Francophone market.

Observations

The problem lay in the fact that the channels that were to broadcast the Olympic Games in French—RDS, RIS and V—only reached a limited number of regions outside Quebec, which deprived many French-speaking Canadians of the opportunity to watch the Games in their own language and went against the principle of equality of status for English and French in Canada. The parliamentary standing committees on official languages, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) and other associations representing local French-speaking communities, and the Commissioner of Official Languages intervened on numerous occasions to resolve the situation.

In response to these steps and following discussions with government representatives, the consortium agreed to provide the RDS, RIS and V signals free of charge during the Games to digital cable and satellite distributors outside of Quebec in order to ensure French broadcast of the Games.

However, because the RDS signal was not transferred to the analogue service for the duration of the Games, this solution excluded French-speaking households in minority areas that used analogue cable and, of course, all those that do not subscribe to broadcast services. Once again, following much manoeuvring between the consortium, the FCFA and other French-speaking community associations, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC), VANOC, the major cable distributors, the Prime Minister’s special representative for the Games and the Commissioner of Official Languages, an agreement was announced on February 11, 2010, the day before the opening of the Olympic Games.

Under this agreement, the Olympic Games were broadcast in French on CPAC, a channel created by a partnership between the major Canadian cable distribution companies that is available to all cable subscribers, as well as RDS, RIS and V. This innovative agreement enabled the vast majority of French-speaking Canadians to access reports on the Olympic Games in their own language, just like their fellow English-speaking citizens.

The Commissioner wishes to thank Konrad W. von Finckenstein, President of the CRTC, for his exceptional cooperation in this matter.

Cable distributor Shaw also deserves mention for ensuring, even before the agreement was signed, that the Games would be broadcast in French on its network in the Vancouver region by replacing the Bravo! channel with the V channel signal during the Games.

It is important to note that broadcasting the Games on CPAC was possible only because Parliament was not sitting at the time of the Olympic Games. The Paralympic Games, which took place after Parliament had reconvened, were not broadcast on CPAC. Therefore, only subscribers to certain cable packages were able to watch the Paralympic Games in French, which were broadcast on RDS and RIS Info Sports, but not V. English coverage was available much more widely, as the Paralympic Games were broadcast in part on CTV as well as on cable channels TSN and Rogers Sportsnet. Francophone associations criticized this situation.

Lessons learned

Canada came very close to not being able to broadcast the Games in both official languages across the country. It took numerous interventions by French-speaking community organizations, including the FCFA and members of the House of Commons and Senate standing committees on official languages in order for the consortium and the cable distributors, in collaboration with the CRTC and CPAC, to find a solution to enable the Olympic Games to be broadcast across Canada in both languages. Moreover, this agreement was not reached until the day before the opening of the Olympic Games. Canada cannot again allow itself to risk waiting until the last minute to resolve the issue of broadcasting the Olympic Games to all Canadians in both official languages.

Future outlook

Major events, such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, create a sense of unity among Canadians and enrich Canadian identity. All Canadians must have access to these events in the official language of their choice. Not all major sporting events receive media coverage as broad as the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The guiding principle of any broadcast agreement, whether for television, Web or any other medium, should be to offer equal access to the event in both official languages. If an event is broadcast from coast to coast in English, it must likewise be broadcast across the country in French. For future major events that are to be broadcast, this issue must be resolved very early in the process by the consortium that wins the broadcast rights. The Government of Canada needs to be proactive right from the start in facilitating negotiation of the necessary agreements to ensure that the event is broadcast equally in both languages.

Institutions serving the travelling public

Other key institutions serving the public

Institutions coordinating health and security