Official Languages Committee on April 21st, 2009

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The other subject is Tourism British Columbia. What appears on their Web site is regrettable.

I really find this totally unacceptable. I don't know if Tourism British Columbia is listening today, but we have two official languages in our country.

It's so sad to see on their Internet site the different countries with different languages. They have Australia. And Canada is there, but when you press “Canada”, the site is only in English. They have Mexico, which, for sure, probably will not be in French. And they have the United States and the United Kingdom, and everything there except French, whereas we have over a million francophone people outside of Quebec, across the country. In British Columbia there have been big numbers of francophones.

This is an international site. What about France, which will be a participant in our Olympics?

I find it very sad that they have not fixed it yet, or believe or say they're not covered by the law and don't have to do it. Yet it's the B.C. tourist site that is promoting the Olympics for our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin. We can get back to that point during the next round. We will continue with Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Fraser, and welcome to your team. This morning we welcome you as our committee's favourite commissioner, as was stated earlier.

I would like to start we a preamble to be sure of the tenure of your recommendations. I would draw your attention to the document you prepared so that committee members may see how things have evolved thus far.

First of all, the committee's goal is to notice problems, point them out to you and, perhaps, help you rectify them. If everything was perfect, we would not need a committee. It is precisely because there are problems that we are trying our best to address them. As Mr. Godin said earlier, there are problems. We are here precisely to raise them with you.

I would like to draw your attention to the first recommendation you made in your document. I will read it and then refer to another recommendation, which I would appreciate your views on. The recommendation reads as follows “That, in future agreements, Canadian Heritage strengthen provisions pertaining to services provided by third parties...” I stopped at the words “third parties”. Based on our discussion this may mean television, Tourism British Columbia, individuals who do not necessarily report to government but to whom the Official Languages Act applies.

Your recommendation 13 reads as follows:

That VANOC add language clauses to agreements with future sponsors and, with the support of the Federal Games Secretariat, strongly encourage existing sponsors to use both official languages in their advertising activities.

There are major sponsors like Samsung, Coca-Cola, etc. Have you received or seen what they are preparing? At the very least, have you made recommendations to them? If we are striving for the acceptance, support and promotion of linguistic duality and certain sponsors, for instance Air Canada, are not, then we have a problem.

Given that it is your first recommendation, have you looked into third parties? You seem to be fixated on third parties which seem to be dragging their heels, if I may. I would like to hear your explanations. What have you noticed so far and what can you recommend to them? As a committee what can we do? We could, for instance, issue a requirement for third parties to respect the Official Languages Act in its entirety.

[Graham Fraser]

I will probably defer to my colleagues so they may provide you with additional detail.

First of all a third party would be, to my understanding, an entity with whom there is a contractual agreement. For instance, the federal government signed a contract with tenants, signatories of an agreement. In the current situation, some stakeholders are not third parties. For instance, Tourism B.C. is not, because it does not receive funding from the federal government; there is no agreement. The multi-party agreement does not apply. It is a provincial agency funded through hotel tax revenues. So, we can bring pressure to bear on this agency, inspire it or discuss the importance of official languages. I have indeed had this type of conversation. However, it is not a third party, technically speaking.

Is my definition of a third party correct?

[Johane Tremblay, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Indeed, some obligations apply to federal institutions when third parties act on their behalf. Tourism B.C. is a good example, because it does not act on behalf of the Canadian Tourism Commission, for instance. They are two separate entities. There is no agreement between these two parties.

Some recommendations have to do with third parties. In the annex you will find obligations which apply when third parties act on behalf of VANOC. The recommendation was to the effect that the provision on obligations applying to third parties was not forceful enough.

There are also obligations which apply to sponsors that are not third parties. The recommendation you mentioned does aim to ensure that when there are agreements with national sponsors, there is indeed a language clause, to ensure advertising be done in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

[Graham Fraser]

I would like to add a technical detail. One of our problems is that the sponsors who deal with the International Olympic Committee, like Pepsi-Cola or Samsung, which you mentioned, are not national sponsors. But if VANOC reaches an agreement with a company that produces, for example, shirts, hats, or other things like that for VANOC, then the multi-party agreement applies, including linguistic obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I don't want to be accused of bias, Mr. Fraser, and so I must interrupt you and ask Mr. D'Amours to continue.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fraser, and thanks to your colleagues for being with us today. There are two very important points that I would like to raise. I will refer, as my colleague Mr. Nadeau did earlier, to the committee meeting of March 31. People from the Department of Canadian Heritage raised a point that I found completely unacceptable. Sometimes we hear things that appear completely illogical. They were talking about volunteers, and we know that they are important. They are the ones who will make a difference and who will ensure that people who come to the Vancouver-Whistler region can receive services in French. They were talking about the number of volunteers, but the witness told us that these people knew how to speak French in varying degrees. How can a francophone express him or herself in French in varying degrees? It is all very well to say that there are varying degrees, but I am not sure that francophones understand their language in varying degrees.

[Graham Fraser]

My understanding of the expression “in varying degrees“ is that it is somewhat the same as what exists for public servants. There are varying degrees of language requirements. Some requirements are for basic French or English. In order for a volunteer to give directions to a visitor, he or she does not have to have the same degree of knowledge of the language as someone who must carry on a more detailed conversation, give instructions...

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

But Mr. Fraser, there are unilingual francophones who will be travelling to that region.

[Graham Fraser]

I agree completely.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

We cannot afford to provide varying degrees of French. I'm sorry, but if we're talking about unilingual francophones, then their ability to understand is that of a unilingual francophone.

[Graham Fraser]

I agree completely.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

It's all very well and good to have 1,000, 10,000 or 20,000 volunteers... If I may, I would like to make a comparison. All kinds of recommendations have been made in the last little while. The Senate Committee on Official Languages made recommendations in February of 2007 and in June of 2008. You also made recommendations in December 2008. However, we are reliving what happened in February, after the countdown ceremony, despite the fact that they had been told, including by us several times... This raises all kinds of questions. I will use an expression we use back home: I really am afraid that we will engage in some badmouthing after the fact, once the Olympic Games are over, because it seems that very few people understand what is at stake. I understand that people might say they are interested in this matter, as you said, but there comes a time when you have to translate words into action. In the past, they were told to pay attention to this, and that we want that. We asked them how they intended to deal with this issue or that one. And yet, less than a year before the games are to begin, and despite all the recommendations which have been made, and everything which has been said, and despite your presence, it seems that the only thing which is happening is that the message is going in one ear and out the other. After the games, there is a risk that the services provided in French will be criticized, and we know that it will be a long time before Canada obtains the Olympic Games again. Let's be realistic: it will probably not happen in the next 10 years. I get the feeling we are missing the boat. Perhaps they feel that they have enough leeway to make it through to the other side, without having to respect the requirements, and once the games have started, it won't matter any more. I'm worried. I might be mistaken; I sure hope so. However, I have serious concerns because, as I said, it seems that the message is going in one ear and out the other. The message is going in and out, and ultimately nothing is really being done to ensure that francophones outside Quebec and elsewhere throughout the world will see their language respected.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, I completely share the concerns of the member. If there is one example of an individual I have in mind, and whom I refer to when I speak to the authorities, it is the unilingual francophone traveller. I think we should keep this person uppermost in our minds. You are afraid that, once the games are over, there will be a lot of second-guessing, and that is precisely why we undertook the study 18 months before the start of the games. That is why we have engaged in an awareness campaign, that is why we will conduct a follow-up to the study, that is why, on a regular basis, given the complaints we receive, we are in contact with the authorities, from British Columbia, on a formal and informal basis, to tell them about the complaints we have received.

As for me, I have a double mandate: to encourage and to disturb. I intend to use these two aspects of my mandate to ensure that we succeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Ms. Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser, I think that you understood my reaction to the events of last February. I'm re-reading your opening statement. You say: "Respect for linguistic duality must be an early reflex during the planning and execution stages, not an afterthought." We've already had one afterthought. Is there going to be another one once the games are over?

I would also like to talk about broadcasting, an issue which I'm deeply concerned about. It will not be possible to broadcast the Olympic Games to all Canadians. It seems that is not possible. We have not received any guarantees. VANOC cannot do anything about it. I don't know if you, Mr. Fraser, can do anything about it, but we certainly will look foolish if our country is unable to broadcast the Olympic Games to all Canadians and Quebeckers, when other countries will be able to do so for their citizens. It will happen in France, in the United States and elsewhere. If they can broadcast the Olympic Games to all of their citizens, and we cannot, we will look like a bunch of idiots.

I would like to know what you think about this.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, I think we are facing a dilemma. The contract was not negotiated with a Canadian institution; this is a private contract negotiated between the International Olympic Committee and the consortium.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I am very aware of that, but I think that we can apply significant pressure on the companies which are involved. You have a great deal of power in the area of official languages. Furthermore we are elected officials. I believe that if we work together, we will be able to apply pressure to the broadcasters to ensure that everyone has access to the games, especially since they are taking place in Canada, and that other countries will broadcast the games to all of their citizens. It doesn't make any sense.

I will briefly come back to VANOC, Mr. Fraser, since I only have five minutes. You yourself said that VANOC is ill-equipped to ensure that services are provided adequately. I would like to know more about that. What are your greatest concerns with regard to VANOC? We don't hear much about that. VANOC's members have significant responsibilities. Do they have the financial resources they need? I raised the matter briefly a little while ago. Do they have enough personnel to ensure that all services will be provided, in French in particular, since I am not really worried about services in English?

[Graham Fraser]

There is a gap between the current level of funding and what is needed to ensure sufficient interpretation and the translation of documents during the games. From the outset, people underestimated the challenge of getting enough people with sufficient experience in simultaneous interpretation for an event which has its own history and its own techniques. As you all know, interpretation is not only a science, it's an art.

In my statement, I said that it was very important for the government and VANOC to immediately address these issues. For 10 days, there will be a huge demand for interpretation, and it will not be easy to deliver the goods.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Fraser, do you have any influence over VANOC? You are, after all, the Commissioner of Official Languages. Can you look over VANOC's shoulder and admonish it if it is not doing its job?

I hope with all my heart that, once the Olympic Games are over, people will not think we are amateurs because we were not even able to provide services to Canadians in both official languages, when that was done elsewhere. I hope that efforts will be made towards that objective and that you will apply significant pressure on the organizations involved, including VANOC, to ensure that the services are there for both the athletes and in the area of broadcasting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Guay.

We will continue with Mr. Godin, and then it will be Mr. Chong's turn. I changed the order of the speakers.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to the Vancouver tourist site, an agency that belongs to the province of British Columbia.

[Graham Fraser]

That is Tourism B.C.