Ottawa, September 15, 2009
Statement to the media for the publication of the 2010 Olympic Games Preparation Follow-up Report
Graham Fraser – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
In December 2008, I published a report on the significant official languages shortfalls of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) and Canadian Heritage. I highlighted VANOC’s goodwill and commitment, but also the many challenges that must still be overcome in order to make the 2010 Winter Olympics an event that reflects Canada’s linguistic duality.
I noted that several federal institutions did not realize that the Games are an important test of their capacity to serve the public in both official languages. My staff therefore launched an awareness campaign for federal institutions last winter.
Now, five months before the Games begin, I see that significant progress has been made. VANOC has accomplished a great deal, and some federal institutions have launched innovative initiatives to provide the public with an “Olympic-calibre performance” that is also authentically Canadian.
However, the follow-up report that I am releasing today highlights many areas for improvement. If these shortcomings are not rectified soon, they could compromise the success of the Games where official languages are concerned.
The deadline is looming and it is time for an extra push. There are only 150 days until the opening ceremonies. To be fully prepared when the flame is lit, VANOC, Canadian Heritage, and the various federal institutions that will be providing services to Canadians and visitors during the Games must take decisive action in the coming weeks.
My follow-up report contains 11 recommendations. Some are for VANOC, others are for Canadian Heritage in its coordination capacity, and a number of others are for federal institutions, especially those present in Canada’s major airports.
Most of the recommendations for VANOC deal with recruiting and training volunteers, signage, translation and the delivery of services to the public.
We are still awaiting more resources for translation to be made available, even though I emphasized this point in last year’s study. Given the urgency and importance of this issue, VANOC and Canadian Heritage need to find a solution to the problem as soon as possible. If nothing is done, it is clear that the resources allocated by VANOC to translation and interpretation will not be enough for the task at hand. I am worried that only part of the documentation to be made available to the public and athletes will be translated.
Recent changes to the model that VANOC plans to use for outdoor signage are very encouraging. However, I am still concerned that VANOC’s municipal and provincial partners have not shown enough urgency in this respect. The Olympic Oval in Richmond is a symptom of a larger problem.
Regarding volunteers, the follow-up report notes that the assessment of the level of bilingualism for volunteers is adequate. In addition, VANOC seems to be on its way to reaching its objective of 3,500 bilingual volunteers out of the total 25,000 volunteers. However, this 14% proportion leaves very little room to manoeuvre in cases where personnel may need to be moved or replaced. The volunteer deployment plan should include provisions for posting bilingual volunteers wherever they are required, at any time.
The countdown ceremony was very disappointing in terms of reflecting the country’s Francophonie. The quality of the cultural festivities surrounding the Games should be much higher in order to reflect all Canadians and to provide a complete image of Canada’s cultural richness. This is especially true for the Games’ opening and closing ceremonies, which will be watched around the world.
This is, in sum, what my report says about elements that are under the responsibility of VANOC.
For the majority of people who travel to Vancouver to celebrate, work, or participate in the Games, the Olympic experience starts at the airport and in other places where federal institutions are in contact with the public. This is why my report examines in detail the measures taken by these institutions. We have also made a series of in-person observations on the quality of service in numerous locations.
I am highly concerned about the results.
In general, the airports are not prepared to welcome visitors in both official languages. There is often a complete lack of French-language service. And when it is present, employees still tend to make initial contact with visitors in English only. At Vancouver Airport—the gateway to the Games!—security screenings, Air Canada and even the airport authorities obtained particularly alarming results, including a score of zero for commercial tenants at Vancouver Airport. The situation is also far from perfect at Toronto’s Pearson Airport, where a large number of visitors will be passing through while travelling to the 2010 Games.
On a more positive note, I should emphasize that employees of Parks Canada and Service Canada can provide bilingual service in nearly all cases. However, these institutions need to ensure that all their employees greet visitors in both official languages to let them know that bilingual service is available. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which administers the important Granville Island site, also seems to be able to provide bilingual services, but has the same issues with bilingual greetings.
I have asked each of these institutions to provide me with an assessment of their official languages performance, after the Games. I hope that these will be stories of success and innovation, not embarrassing failures.
In conclusion, I would like to clarify one thing. The Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games belong to all Canadians, and it is essential that they reflect Canadian values, including linguistic duality. I do not want visitors to be greeted with “Sorry, I don’t speak French.”
In Western Canada, 600,000 people are fluent in both our official languages, about half of whom live in British Columbia. Many federal institutions prove every day that official languages are an important part of quality service. And for every challenge, there is a solution. These solutions may be those developed by the various players themselves or put forward in my report.
I am pleased to see the progress made so far, but worried that certain key elements are still not in place. Everyone involved must act now to give it the necessary push.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
