IV. Findings - Weaknesses identified

Page 9 of 17

Government of Canada communications policy, procedures and guidelines

The previous government communications policy dates back to 1988. The new CPGC took effect on April 1, 2002. At the time we conducted our interviews and examined the communications documents relating to the internal operations of the institutions taking part in this study, the 1988 policy was still in force. This report does, however, take into account the changes included in the new policy.

To begin, this policy stipulates that federal institutions are not required to submit for approval to Communication Canada their notices, calls to tender, announcements of public hearings and general information about institutions. Our data shows that notices account for about a quarter, or 24.9%, of advertising-related complaints (211 complaints) filed with our office between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001. This significant number of complaints indicates that better monitoring is necessary.

Although TBS added a few details, official languages still occupy only a relatively small place in the CPGC. Policy Requirement #4 states simply: "[...] institutions must respect the equality of status of the two official languages as established by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and given effect through the Official Languages Act and the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations."

The previous government communications policy of 1988 clearly reiterated institutions’ linguistic obligations as regards service to the public, namely, to respect "the constitutional right of the public to be served in English or French from their head or central office, or from any other of their offices where there is a significant demand for services in such language, or where the nature of the office makes it reasonable that services be provided in both official languages."6 The new policy does not include this reference. Rather, Policy Requirement #4 reads: "Institutions must identify and respect all official language requirements that apply when engaging in any of the communication activities stipulated in this policy."

The section of the policy pertaining specifically to advertising (Policy Requirement #23) states that institutions must determine the linguistic obligations incumbent upon them pursuant to sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act; however, it does not set out what these obligations are.

In light of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that, in the new CPGC, TBS should have retained the reference to the public’s constitutional right to be served in English or in French at the head or central office of federal institutions, as well as at any other office or facility where there is significant demand for communications with and services in either of those languages or where this is justified given the mandate of the office. TBS should further strengthen the overall official languages provisions as well as provisions with regard to specific communication activities.

The Commissioner of Official Languages therefore recommends that the Treasury Board Secretariat:

  1. ensure that, by March 31, 2003, the government communications policy, procedures or guidelines place greater emphasis on official language obligations by referring to sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act, that is, by stipulating linguistic obligations according to the mode of communication used and by citing the right of Canadians to receive communications from the federal government in the official language of their choice;
  2. ensure that, by March 31, 2003, where linguistic obligations are cited, its government communications policy, procedures or guidelines refer the reader to the relevant sections/chapters/guidelines of Treasury Board policies, the Official Languages Act, or the Official Languages Regulations.

Regarding Recommendation 1, TBS points out that Policy Requirement #23 of the CPGC refers to the obligations under sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act and specifies the obligation to include the media serving the linguistic minority. Also, under Policy Statement #2 and under Policy Requirements #1a) and #4 of the CPGC, there are references to the language obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right of the public to communicate with the government in either language, and references to the Official Languages Act and to the obligation to comply with Treasury Board official languages policies.

We concur with TBS that the CPGC is not intended as a substitute to the Official Languages Act. However, we believe that TBS ought to take every opportunity, in its policies and guidelines, to reinforce relevant official language obligations by outlining their basic principles, in addition to referring the reader to related policies and guidelines.

TBS has informed us that it plans to take Recommendation 2 into account during the next policy review scheduled to occur within five years of the CPGC’s effective date. The intent of the recommendation is that TBS take appropriate action within the specified time frame. Thus, in the shorter term, we consider that TBS ought to amend its communications guidelines in accordance with the recommendation.

Advertisements published by members of Parliament

The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages also receives complaints to the effect that members of Parliament and federal ministers place advertisements in newspapers, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to announce government initiatives such as funding or job creation, or to invite the public to events. These ads often include the name of the member of Parliament or the name and title of the minister in question, along with the Government of Canada logo. When such complaints are brought to the attention of the office of the member of Parliament or Minister, officials answer that the ads in question were paid for by the member of Parliament’s or Minister’s constituency office. They point out that, pursuant to section 90 of the Official Languages Act, which states that "[n]othing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any powers, privileges or immunities of members of the Senate or the House of Commons in respect of their personal offices and staff or of judges of any Court," such ads are not covered by this Act. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is currently examining the application of this section. Any ensuing recommendations will be addressed to the proper authorities.

Treasury Board official languages policies

The Policy on Communications with the Public7 stipulates when communications with the public must be in both official languages and also defines what constitutes a communication. This definition includes advertisements.

Moreover, the policy stipulates (Policy Requirement #3) that "[a]ny country-wide communication with the public, by a federal institution or on its behalf, must therefore normally be provided simultaneously in both official languages." [our underlining] In our opinion, this sentence is open to interpretation as regards advertising. For example, a manager may conclude that if he or she places an announcement in the official language majority newspaper in a specific region, he or she is not required to place the announcement in official language minority newspapers since the announcement is not disseminated country-wide. This is incorrect. The fact that an announcement is not published nationally does not preclude the institution being required to publish it in both official languages. Moreover, if an institution places an announcement in a majority-language daily on a Monday and the minority-language newspaper is a weekly and is only published on Thursday, the institution will clearly not be able to publish its announcement in both newspapers simultaneously. The reality is that a number of official language minority newspapers are only printed once a week, hence weeklies. Minority-language weeklies are an effective method of communication given the relatively permanent nature of the announcements featured in them, their long-term accessibility and the fact that they have good market penetration and stable readership.

TBS points out that the sentence in its Policy on Communications with the Public, to which we refer above as being open to interpretation, must be interpreted in relation to the sentence which precedes it. This sentence states that "[w]hen the communication is aimed at the general public [...], both official languages must be used." In our view, to interpret the second sentence in relation to the first presupposes that the "general public" is synonymous with "country-wide." We believe that targeting the "general public" can also mean the public within a specific region, in which case both official languages may have to be used, depending on whether the region is in an area of significant demand as determined by the Official Languages Regulations.

Since our example concerns placing an advertisement in the newspapers, TBS also underlines the fact that in this case reference must be made to the Policy on Use of Media,8 which deals specifically with the matter. TBS further points out that advertising in official languages minority media is addressed in the CPGC, which includes the following statement under Policy Requirement #23: "[...] institutions must respect the Government of Canada’s commitment, stated in Part VII of the [Official Languages] Act, to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. Advertising plans and campaigns must address the needs, concerns and language preferences of such communities. Media buys must include the purchase of advertising space and time in organs serving a community’s official language minority, be it English or French."

We recognize that TBS’s guidelines on media use clarify the obligations of federal institutions under sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act and are intended to help institutions apply the policy efficiently and effectively. These guidelines do not, however, have the force of law. They are instead akin to good management practices.

It is our opinion that Treasury Board’s official languages policies should provide more details about the obligations arising from sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act and suggest more ways of implementing them.

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Treasury Board Secretariat:

  1. by March 31, 2003, revise the Policy on Communications with the Public to include more details about the obligations arising from sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act and directly discuss media use.

TBS has pointed out that the Policy on Use of Media specifically deals with the obligations under sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act. However, it agrees that the Policy on Communications with the Public could have better links to the Policy on Use of the Media. Its Official Languages Branch will therefore consider the above recommendation in the context of the official languages policy review which will take place in the coming year.

We expect the consideration given the above recommendation to translate into the action necessary to fully implement it.

During our interviews, some of the institutions listed in Schedule III of the Financial Administration Act expressed a need for better directives on the implementation of sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act. We trust that implementation of the above recommendation and the establishment of links between the two Treasury Board policies mentioned above will be helpful to these institutions, since Treasury Board encourages them to draw on its policies in order to comply with the Official Languages Act.

Moreover, with regard to monitoring, it was noted that TBS ensures that the official languages policies are applied through monitoring activities conducted either by the institution or by its Official Languages Branch.

We found that many institutions whose communications functions and especially advertising are decentralized have no system to ensure that managers are well acquainted and comply with their obligations relating to communications/advertising. We were also told that regional managers can easily publish newspaper announcements without the knowledge of officials at head office. Communications officials at the head offices of some institutions stated that regional managers have access to the various federal policies and to the Advertising Guide, all of which are posted on Publiservice, and they assume that all managers fully understand their contents.

Moreover, other institutions indicated that they had resolved several problems since they had developed an internal directive distributed to all managers in all their offices throughout the country. This is the case at Fisheries and Oceans. The internal directive prepared in 2000 led to a drop in the number of advertising-related complaints filed against the institution.

In view of the large number of complaints we continue to receive concerning the failure of federal institutions to use the minority-language press, and given that the head of communications in each institution clearly is responsible for ensuring compliance with the CPGC, all federal institutions must exert greater control over the management of their advertising process, and TBS must see to the application of Treasury Board official languages policies.

In light of the preceding, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Treasury Board Secretariat:

  1. by March 31, 2003, develop audit measures to see to the application of the advertising component of Treasury Board official languages policies and conduct periodic audits;
  2. by March 31, 2003, encourage federal institutions to develop internal procedures to help their managers apply the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada to institutional operations.

TBS accepts the principles in Recommenda-tion 4 and has indicated that its Official Languages Branch will be able to follow up on it within a year. We take this to mean and expect that the Official Languages Branch will in fact do so within a year.

Regarding Recommendation 5, TBS underlines the fact that the CPGC contains procedures that institutions must follow. As for internal procedures within departments, TBS considers that this question is properly left to each institution concerned, provided the procedures they develop for their own operations meet the procedural requirements of the CPGC.

While we agree that the question of internal procedures is properly left to each institution concerned, we believe that TBS ought nonetheless to encourage institutions to develop procedures tailored to their particular situation. In this way, managers may be more likely to buy into the policies.

Advertising Guide

This guide was published in January 2000 by the now defunct Communications Coordination Services Branch of PWGSC to help institutions subject to the government communications policy to conduct their advertising effectively through the appropriate media.

The section entitled "Advertising Checklist" provides a list of steps in the advertising process. In bold type, it states that advertising should be planned in both official languages, adding later on that copy should be proof-read in both languages.

Under the "Applicable Policies" section, the guide notes initially that "[t]he Official Languages Act states that both official languages must be used and presented equally in all advertising."9 The guide cites for example that, "[...] when an ad is placed in a daily English-language paper serving a specific community, [...] the same ad must be placed in an equivalent French-language paper serving the same community. If there are no equivalent newspapers, the alternatives would be to use a different medium (for example, radio), or to publish a bilingual advertisement in the newspaper of your choice."10 [our underlining]

The guide is helpful in that it states federal institutions’ linguistic obligations and gives an example of their application. However, we do not agree with the interpretation of the Official Languages Act that is presented. The sample announcement included in the guide is in fact a misinterpretation of the Official Languages Act. This Act does not stipulate that announcements must be published in daily newspapers. The equality of both languages does not necessarily mean that they must be treated "identically." As regards the print media, minority-language weeklies are an effective way of reaching official language communities since these papers have good market penetration and enjoy stable readership.

The Department of National Defence has underlined the fact that there are instances where minority-language publications do not reach a wide enough portion of the community. In this regard, we wish to point out that, whereas a national official language majority newspaper may be appropriate for reaching the target audience in cases of country-wide advertising in English, there is no equivalent newspaper for doing so in French. Thus, in such cases, in order to compensate and reach out at the national level, institutions are required to place advertisements in French-language newspapers in various localities. However, if in doing so, equivalence is still not achieved, other media will have to be used.

The Advertising Guide, now the responsibility of Communication Canada, should make the distinction between the obligations arising from section 11 and those arising from section 30 of the Official Languages Act. Section 30 stipulates that, where warranted by demand, the use of the media must provide for effective communication with members of the public in their preferred official language. The institution may choose to use newspapers. Section 11 does not allow institutions to use media other than the print media. Under this section, institutions are required to publish announcements in both official languages, the French version in at least one primarily French-language publication and the English version in at least one primarily English-language publication. This section pertains to publications "in general circulation within each region."11 This does not limit the choice to daily newspapers.

In light of the preceding, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that Communication Canada:

  1. by March 31, 2003, make the required corrections to the Advertising Guide, drawing on Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines on media use, to make the distinction between obligations pursuant to section 11 and those pursuant to section 30 of the Official Languages Act;

Communication Canada has informed us that when it received our preliminary report, the guide was already being revised. Communication Canada will pursue its review, in cooperation with our Office and TBS, and take into account TBS’s guidelines on advertising, which will be issued shortly within the framework of the CPGC.

  1. by March 31, 2003, define, in its Advertising Guide, the concept of equivalent publication;

Communication Canada will define the concept of equivalence in co-operation with our Office and TBS.

  1. by March 31, 2003, change its interpretation of equivalent publication to include weeklies.

Communication Canada will make the modifications in co-operation with our Office and TBS.

All supporting documents pertaining to communications and advertising are available on Publiservice, which is managed by Communication Canada. This Intranet site offers a whole range of services relating to the various media, including advertising samples and key links. This site is well designed and provides a wealth of information for communications managers. Communication Canada points out that almost 95% of all federal public servants have access to Publiservice and the percentage is increasing all the time.

Access to Publiservice by federal institutions listed in Schedule III of the Financial Administration Act and by privatized institutions subject to the Official Languages Act is optional and costs are associated with each subscription. Such access is assured through the Government Enterprise Network (GENet), managed by PWGSC. At the time when Communication Canada was preparing its comments on our preliminary report, responsible officials at GENet informed them that, among the federal institutions listed in Schedule III mentioned above, new institutions were subscribing to the GENet at a rate such that 90% of them now have access to Publiservice and, therefore, to the whole range of information contained therein.

Contracts with advertising and placement agencies

For the institutions listed in Schedules I and II of the Financial Administration Act, PWGSC is the only body authorized to issue advertising-related contracts, either with advertising agencies or with the placement agency accredited by the government (Media I.D.A. Vision).

The institutions listed in Schedule III of the Financial Administration Act and the privatized institutions subject to the Official Languages Act negotiate their contracts directly with advertising agencies, without any involvement on the part of PWGSC.

The study showed that contracts signed between client federal institutions (institutions listed in Schedules I, II, and III as well as privatized institutions) and advertising agencies do not include any clause citing the requirements relating to communications with and services to the public in both official languages.

Officials of the now defunct Communica-tions Coordination Services Branch at PWGSC maintained that it is not necessary to include such a clause in standard contracts since each federal institution is wholly responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Official Languages Act. Moreover, they added that advertising agencies that make it through the pre-selection process must submit an advertising campaign illustrating, among other things, their use of media in both official languages. In their opinion, the agencies know that they must produce advertising in both official languages.

We do not share this point of view. Including a language-related clause in the contract with an advertising or placement agency would be a more effective way of ensuring that agencies are aware of and comply with federal institutions’ linguistic obligations as regards communications with and services to the public.

The Commissioner of Official Languages therefore recommends that Public Works and Government Services Canada:

  1. by March 31, 2003, develop a language-related clause to be included in all future contracts signed with advertising or placement agencies.

The Department has informed us that it will follow up on this recommendation, although we have not yet received written confirmation to this effect.

The Commissioner of Official Languages also recommends that the Treasury Board Secretariat:

  1. by March 31, 2003, encourage federal institutions for whom Treasury Board is not the employer and privatized institutions subject to the Official Languages Act to include a language-related clause in all future contracts signed with their advertising and/or placement agencies.

According to TBS, the role of Treasury Board with respect to these institutions is to encourage them to apply the principles set out in its policies, and TBS is not authorized to specify the procedures to be followed. Thus TBS considers that it is not in a position to follow up on the above recommendation as stated. However, TBS’s Official Languages Branch is prepared to remind these institutions, and even to stress, at the next Crown Corporations Advisory Committee on Official Languages meeting in 2003, that they are responsible for taking the necessary measures to comply with the principles set out in Treasury Board policies.

Given that PWGSC is prepared to add a language-related clause to its contracts with advertising and the accredited placement agency, we consider that TBS could at least suggest to federal institutions for whom Treasury Board is not the employer that they follow PWGSC’s lead. Including a language-related clause in their contracts with these agencies would serve to ensure that these institutions comply with the principles set out in Treasury Board policies when third parties act on their behalf.

We have been informed by the Clerk of the Privy Council that the President of the Treasury Board has requested that TBS examine mechanisms for monitoring the application of the CPGC by federal agencies and Crown corporations.

English-language and French-language publications across the country

Media I.D.A. Vision is the placement agency accredited for the government, that is, for the institutions listed in Schedules I and II of the Financial Administration Act. It is the only agency authorized to purchase media space or air time on behalf of the government. All advertising subject to approval by Communication Canada must be submitted to Media I.D.A. Vision for placement. Federal institutions listed in Schedule III of this Act, for which approval from Communication Canada is not required, usually deal directly with the newspapers.

PWGSC officials stated that it is up to the accredited placement agency to keep a current list of English-language and French-language publications/newspapers across the country and that this responsibility is one of the conditions of its contract with the government. Nevertheless, we found no specific clause to this effect in the contract.

Moreover, the advertising agencies used by the institutions listed in Schedule III of the Financial Administration Act and by privatized institutions do not have access to the newspaper list held by Media I.D.A. Vision, since they are not its clients.

In spite of what PWGSC officials told us, we were surprised to hear, on more than one occasion, from advertising officials with Schedule I and II institutions, that advertising agencies they deal with do not have at their disposal the same list of nationally-recognized newspapers that Media I.D.A. Vision has.

As the body responsible for awarding government advertising contracts, PWGSC should perform its advertising-related responsibilities more effectively. Since the placement agency Media I.D.A. Vision acts on behalf of PWGSC, it is incumbent on PWGSC to ensure that the list of English-language and French-language newspapers across the country is updated and distributed to whoever should receive it. Moreover, PWGSC should establish selection criteria to guide the choice of English-language and French-language newspapers across the country and append them to the contract signed with the placement agency.

In light of the preceding, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that Public Works and Government Services Canada:

  1. by December 31, 2002, amend its contract with Media I.D.A. Vision, to include a clause stipulating that the agency must keep an updated list of English-language and French-language newspapers across the country and of the regions served by these newspapers.

The Department has informed us that it will follow up on this recommendation, although we have not yet received written confirmation to this effect.

In her preliminary report, the Commissioner recommended that Communication Canada take appropriate measures to make available to the institutions listed in Schedule III of the Financial Administration Act and to privatized institutions subject to the Official Languages Act the aforementioned list of newspapers.

According to Communication Canada, the list of newspapers is already offered to planning departments and organizations through its partner responsible for the management of this list, Media I.D.A. Vision. Moreover, as already mentioned, 90% of Schedule III institutions now have access to Publiservice.

In the course of our study, we learned of a case where a Schedule III institution was denied the list of newspapers by Media I.D.A. Vision since the institution in question was not one of its clients.

The Commissioner of Official Languages therefore recommends that Communication Canada:

  1. inform institutions listed in Schedule III of the Financial Administration Act that a list of newspapers is available to them and explain how they can obtain it.

Partnership

Whereas the previous government communications policy addressed the issues of partnership and sponsorship in only a superficial way, the new policy deals with these matters in greater detail. However, the only reference to official languages reads as follows: "Official languages [...] are among the communication requirements delineated in partnering agreements." (Policy Requirement #24). Managers who are not familiar with the policies and practices therefore have to do extensive research in order to understand these requirements.

The Advertising Guide, which is now the responsibility of Communication Canada, makes very little mention of advertising partnerships. The only reference is in Appendix A, a short definition of "partnership" and the following suggestion about its use: "If government funds are provided to an association or group for communication and marketing activities and there is resultant visibility for the department (such as the Canada wordmark use), departmental representatives should have the opportunity to approve the material before it is published to ensure that government policies, such as the Official Languages Policy, are respected."12

Treasury Board’s official languages policies were developed to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Official Languages Act. Although there are guidelines pertaining to grants and contributions, TBS does not address the issue of partnership.

Federal advertising conducted through partnerships with other groups is the subject of 7.5% of advertising-related complaints filed since 1998. We noted that there are few directives to guide federal institutions in this regard.

We acknowledge that the level of federal participation in a partnership can vary greatly from one agreement to another and that it would be difficult to apply a general operating principle. This is all the more reason to ensure that institutions are given sufficient guidance.

The study also revealed that some representatives of federal institutions do not make a distinction between the obligations pursuant to federal funding and those pursuant to a partnership. Some institutions, such as Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), are more or less a conduit for federal funding to other levels, such as the provinces. This funding is in turn distributed by the provinces to other entities, such as municipalities. A province or municipality that decides to place an advertisement in a newspaper does so of its own free will, and not in partnership with a federal institution. CMHC’s participation is at the level of program funding. It is not a partner in conducting advertising campaigns.

In light of the foregoing, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Treasury Board Secretariat:

  1. by March 31, 2003, ensure that the policy, procedures or guidelines on government communications assign greater importance to the issue of advertising partnerships and to official language obligations by referring to sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act, that is, by specifying linguistic requirements according to the medium of communication used;
  2. by March 31, 2003, revise the Policy on Communications with the Public to specify the obligations of federal institutions participating in partnerships.

Regarding Recommendation 13, TBS has informed us that communications guidelines for partnering, collaborative arrangements and sponsorships will be issued under the CPGC well in advance of March 31, 2003. Advertising guidelines will also be issued under the CPGC before this date, and they will address the official language obligations under sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act. However, they will not replace the Policy on Use of Media.

As to Recommendation 14, TBS agrees that it would be advisable to indicate the obligations of federal institutions in partnership situations more specifically. Accordingly, TBS proposes incorporating this measure into the official languages policy review process, for which the framework and timetable is currently being developed by its Official Languages Branch. TBS will also raise the matter with the official languages champions and directors. The issue will also be taken into account when developing the CPGC guidelines for partnering, collaborative arrangements and sponsorships.

We expect TBS to take appropriate action in line with the above recommendation and, in the meantime, to ensure that this issue is adequately addressed in the CPGC guidelines.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) points out that, in their experience, beneficiaries of grants and contributions in many cases overlook the language-related clause in their agreement and publish advertisements in one language only. Quite often in such cases it is too late to correct the situation, since advertisements have to be placed within a particular time frame. ACOA suggests that federal institutions responsible for advertisements published by third parties ask their front line employees to stress the importance of the beneficiary’s responsibilities with respect to advertising in both official languages where the policy applies. We concur with ACOA that federal institutions ought to regularly remind third parties of their official language obligations with respect to advertising.

Impact of advertising deadlines at various newspapers

During our study, we met with officials from the Association de la presse francophone (APF), which represents 24 French-language newspapers outside Quebec, and with one official from the Quebec Community Newspapers Association (QCNA), which represents 32 English-language community newspapers in Quebec.

As stated in the section of this report entitled "Advertising Guide," many official language minority newspapers are weeklies, whether they are French-language newspapers outside Quebec or English-language newspapers in Quebec. A number of them have a policy of setting the Friday prior to newspaper delivery as the deadline for placing advertising orders. If the newspaper is delivered on Thursday or Friday, institutions must therefore submit their advertising orders nearly a week before the newspaper is delivered. Once an order is placed, some newspapers allow institutions a grace period of one or two working days to submit the layout for the advertisement.

The institutions interviewed stated that dailies, whether English-language or French-language, require barely 24 hours notice to place an ad.

The deadline for weeklies should not pose any problems for institutions in the case of advertising campaigns planned over a relatively long period of time, such as an annual advertising campaign or an advertising campaign relating to a specific program (e.g. Health Canada’s anti-tobacco campaign). Good planning should allow institutions to meet the newspapers’ deadlines.

The same is not true of institutions operating in a competitive or changing environment, such as transportation companies like Air Canada and Via Rail or Canada Investment and Savings, for its Canada Savings Bonds campaign.

In order to remain competitive in the transportation industry, a company such as Air Canada must often react quickly to a number of external factors. In this market, with the lead time to place an ad being so short, often just over 72 hours, these companies cannot always meet the newspapers’ deadlines. For example, deadlines are essential to the success of a seat sale campaign. For sales lasting more than seven days, an airline company can still meet the deadline and place an ad in an official language minority weekly. If the advertising campaign is shorter in duration, however, the institution cannot necessarily meet the weeklies’ deadlines.

Canada Investment and Savings must also respond to unforeseen events, since interest rates fluctuate regularly. The institution may be required to cancel its advertising order at the last minute when interest rates change and the advertisement is no longer relevant.

Section 30 of the Official Languages Act provides that, where institutions are required to offer services to the public in both official languages, they must use media that allow them to communicate effectively with the public in the official language of their choice. If an institution decides that newspapers are the best medium to convey a specific message to the public, this media choice must generally be used for the English-speaking public and French-speaking public alike. However, as mentioned previously, equal treatment of both languages does not always mean that they must be treated identically.

We recognize that official language minority newspapers do not have the same resources as the large dailies and cannot accommodate institutions as easily as the dailies can. Although the Commissioner has no jurisdiction over privately-owned newspapers, she nevertheless considers that official language minority newspapers could examine various options to facilitate the placement of advertising orders.

We acknowledge that the short deadlines set by official language minority newspapers pose a challenge to federal institutions operating in a competitive sector. The fact remains, however, that they have linguistic obligations and must consider all possibilities in order to fulfil them. We consider institutions to be contravening the Official Languages Act if they publish an ad in the newspaper of the official language majority without placing the same ad in the newspaper of the official language minority, when they state that they are unable to meet the latter’s deadlines and do not take other steps to reach the official language minority community.

An institution that chooses, under section 30 of the Official Languages Act, to place an ad in an official language majority newspaper in a region with significant demand and then cannot meet the deadlines for the official language minority newspapers must find another way of conveying the information to the official language minority community. During its 2001 campaign, Canada Investment and Savings designed a generic, camera-ready ad that the weeklies published instead of cancelling the planned ad due to a change in interest rates. The ad copy gave readers the telephone number they could call to find out current interest rates. This practice allowed Investment and Savings Canada to reduce the number of complaints filed against it with respect to savings bond campaigns from a total of 24 complaints in 1999 to a single complaint in 2001. We believe that transportation companies such as Air Canada ought to explore various avenues when facing similar problems.

In light of the preceding, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the federal institutions in question:

  1. by March 31, 2003, arrange exploratory meetings with representatives of the Association de la presse francophone and the Quebec Community Newspapers Association in order to find solutions that would allow them to meet, at all times, their linguistic obligations under sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act.

Communication Canada has informed us that such meetings have already taken place and continue to take place on a regular basis in order to share the information with the communications community as a whole.

Although the Association de la presse francophone has not yet been approached by Communication Canada in this respect, the Association has indicated that it is willing to take the necessary steps, in consultation with its member newspapers, towards examining the possibility of longer deadlines. Its role would be limited to proposing solutions since it could not oblige its members to revise their advertising deadlines.

The Department of National Defence points out that, although its advertising campaigns are for the most part proactive and therefore planned well in advance, there are situations where recruitment advertising must be reactive, such as when the Department is faced with a skill shortage and must tap into the market quickly at a particular point in time. This may mean offering potential recruits an incentive, such as a bonus or allowance, which requires Treasury Board approval. In these situations, media publication schedules are not always able to accommodate the life cycle of the target group. However, the Department routinely contacts the minority press to ensure that it meets its official language obligations.

While we appreciate that certain circumstances can pose special problems, we believe that institutions ought to make allowances for such eventualities as part of their planning.

Notes

6. Treasury Board, Government Communications Policy (1988).

7. Treasury Board, official languages policies, chapter 1-1 - Communications with the Public [http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/OffLang/CHAP1_1_e.htmlGovernment site].

8. Treasury Board, official languages policies, chapter 1-5 - Use of Media [http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/OffLang/CHAP1_5_e.htmlGovernment site].

9. Public Works and Government Services Canada, Advertising Guide.

10. Supra, note 9, pp. 3-4.

11. Supra, note 1, s. 11.

12. Supra, note 9, p. 15.



Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page