Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 5 - Evidence - October 23, 2006
OTTAWA, Monday, October 23, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is meeting today at 4:00 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Maria Chaput, the chair of the committee and I come from Manitoba.
Before giving the floor to our witnesses, allow me to introduce the other members of this committee. To my right is the vice-chair of the committee, Senator Andrée Champagne from Quebec, Senator Gerald J. Comeau from Nova Scotia and Senator Lowell Murray from Ontario. To my left is Senator Mobina S.B. Jaffer from British Columbia, Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta, Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool from New Brunswick and Senator Fernand Robichaud, who is also from New Brunswick.
Today, we are continuing our study on the application of the Official Languages Act, and more specifically, we are examining the situation of official languages in the lead-up to the Winter Olympics which will be held in Vancouver in 2010.
We will first hear from Ms. Lise Bissonnette, who was named the Grand Témoin de la Francophonie to the 2006 Turin Winter Olympics by the International Organization of the Francophonie. She produced a report entitled La place et l'usage de la langue française aux Jeux olympiques d'hiver de Turin 2006, which indicates that French, depending on where it was spoken within the Games, has either maintained or lost its place as the official language of the Olympic movement. Today, Ms. Bissonnette is the Chief Executive Officer of the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales of Quebec. Ms. Bissonnette, welcome. You have the floor.
Lise Bissonnette, Grand Témoin de la Francophonie for the Turin Winter Olympic Games, Chief Executive Officer, Bibliothèque et Archives nationales of Quebec: I would like to begin by saying that I am very pleased to be here today. Somebody asked me a few moments ago whether I had already appeared before a parliamentary committee, and the answer is yes, it was in Quebec City, but never in Ottawa, although I sat in on many such committees when I was a journalist. However, this goes back several years. Some people might remember that time and it was nice to see some members from the committee again.
I simply would like to know what you expect of me. Would you like me to speak for a few minutes, or should I make a longer presentation? How does this committee operate so that I can best adapt to your requirements?
The Chairman: Ms. Bissonnette, we would appreciate a presentation of about ten minutes after which we will move on to questions.
Ms. Bissonnette: Fine. I presume that committee members read my report on the use of the French language at the 2006 Turin Olympic Winter Games. If not, I brought additional copies. I will leave you with six copies of the report, but you can also find it on the website of the International Organization of the Francophonie.
I will summarize my main conclusions and then, since I brought my working notes from my stay in Turin with me, I will do my best to answer your questions. I suppose you are interested in this issue because of the upcoming Vancouver Winter Games in 2010.
In my preliminary remarks, I will say a phrase which summarizes what I found out in the course of the two missions I was on in Turin at the end of 2005 and in 2006. French, which was the language of the Olympics a century ago, has become a ceremonial language, one which is used for reasons of protocol, which is still spoken at formal events. However, in the course of the Games themselves, French is at best the second or third language spoken. A few months ago, I gave a press conference in Paris to unveil this report, and I told the journalists who repeated this phrase that, at the Olympics, the French language was like the language which used to be spoken at mass, namely Latin. Everything else obviously happened in English. In Turin, the languages spoken were English and Italian.
Let me remind you about the objectives and the spirit of this report. Mr. Diouf, from the International Organization of the Francophonie, asked me to be the observer, the Grand Témoin de la Francophonie, at the Turin Games in 2006, because in his view — a view shared by all member countries of the International Organization of the Francophonie — French as an international language is losing ground and the Olympic movement, in that regard, is very important and crucial. He is right.
For the 2004 Games in Athens, Mr. Diouf had for the first time named Mr. Bourges, a former French journalist, the Grand Témoin de la Francophonie. Mr. Bourges produced a fairly negative report which some of you may have read. For the following Olympic Games, Mr. Diouf wanted to name someone from a northern country outside of Europe. This is how I came to be named Grand Témoin de la Francophonie.
I went on two missions, one in 2005, before the Turin Games began, and the other during the entire length of the games. In my report, I explained some fundamental issues which I thought should be highlighted. French is the founding language of the games. It is the mother tongue of the Olympics. When the Olympics were founded a second time in Paris, in 1894, by the famous Baron Pierre de Coubertin, it was in French. However, the Olympic Charter only contains a single section which deals with official languages. Section 24 states that French and English are the official languages of the games. But for practical reasons, English became the official language in the course of time, but section 24 — and this is one of my main conclusions — does not provide for any type of regulatory framework. We live in Canada, and we know that a law without regulations or a language regime will not go very far if it does not contain a certain number of prescriptions and orders. This is therefore the main problem with French as an Olympic language. Section 24 is completely open to interpretation by cities chosen to host the games, and this is what is happening as far as the Beijing Games, which will be held in two years, are concerned.
Nevertheless, I found a certain number of positive things. In terms of the use of French, the situation had somewhat improved in Turin compared to Athens. For instance, French was used as a ceremonial language, it was spoken during the medals ceremony, it was a language for official purposes. But this was not the case in Athens, where French was all but ignored, particularly during the official opening ceremonies of the games. In Turin, the medals ceremonies and the opening and closing ceremonies happened strictly in three languages, since the games were taking place in Italy and Italy had a status which obviously could not be questioned. There were also a certain number of improvements, including the website — although this happened at a late point during the Turin Olympics — and of course, there were the volunteers. You could say that it is fairly easy to find French-speaking volunteers in Turin because the city has a natural French background, at least with seniors. But it was quite different as far as young people were concerned. Turin, which is close to the French border and therefore receives many French tourists, can provide service in French, which means that the volunteers who worked at the different games sites could easily find someone who spoke French. Believe me, I tested them.
So there were several positive things. You got the feeling that people were at ease speaking French in Turin, but there were also remarkable gaps. I included several of them in my report and they are significant.
As for the business aspect of the games, you all know that the Olympics are big business today. I could talk about this subject at length; it was unfortunate, sad, some days it was funny, but French was barely on the radar. From the airport to Olympic merchandise, including pencils, clothing, head gear, and anything else which was for sale, as soon as money was involved, French disappeared.
One of the saddest things about the Olympic Games was the sports commentary. The safety procedures were provided in French, English and Italian whereas the Olympic events were commented on in English, Italian and German, every language but French, with the exception being skiing.
It is ironic that I am telling this to a Canadian committee. It is interesting that for hockey, our sport, the individual who was providing the safety procedures in the stadium was the person you hear at the Bell Centre in Montreal. He was the one who trained all the hockey sports commentators because Italians are not very familiar with the rules of the game, the scoring, how to do the play-by-play. He is the one who trained all the teams of commentators. I attended several games and at the games themselves not a single word was said in French. Despite his objections and his work. That was the case for all the events except, occasionally, skiing. I think that is a major shortcoming.
Another shortcoming is the fact that technical meetings only take place in English. All the witnesses I met, who, unlike myself, were not participating in the Olympic Games for the first time, told me that French has almost completely disappeared — especially within technical and medical commissions.
In terms of the media, it is a catastrophe. In the public reception areas there are some French, English and Italian ads, however in the area reserved for the media, where I met reporters from the print and broadcast media, everything is in English as soon as you pass through the arches of the media centre, even to the exclusion of Italian. The presumption in the organizing of the games is that all reporters are able to cope in to English. English is the instrumental language and therefore all the other languages disappear, they are not important, they are not visible. It is a catastrophe.
My predecessor, Mr. Bourges, made recommendations regarding television signals, which were completely ignored. The people producing the signal do the still reading in English only and that is how it is broadcasted globally, with no further translation or simultaneous interpretation.
So those are some major shortcomings. As you can see it is all very well to use the French language for the ceremony, but the language being spoken has become English.
There are additional factors. I wanted to be lenient towards our Italian friends, because they gave me a warm welcome and they acted in good faith. It has to be said that the area of sports is not the first in the world to be guilty of this kind of situation. International communication is now in English. I do not need to focus on this issue, but all the studies have been done and French is losing ground. It is losing it there like it is losing it elsewhere, no more, no less. The decline in French, even within the francophonie, is one of the important statements made in this report. Several times witnesses said to me, if at least the French spoke French — this is a problem that you are fully aware of. I was rereading my notes earlier on the plane and I read that 90 per cent of National Olympic Committees request their documents from the IOC in English. The IOC gives them a choice between English and French. You will agree that that 90 per cent includes some of the 63 francophone countries. That was one of the reasons behind the decline in the use of French, that is, that francophones themselves and the media are not using it much. English has become the international language of sports. Some sports, like hockey, for example, used French as their official language and now they use English exclusively. I do not know of one Winter Olympic sporting event that does not exclusively, or almost exclusively, use English as its language of communication.
The evolution of the olympic movement — I spoke to you a few moments ago about commerce — is something close to my heart. What I found obvious is that the values of the olympic movement itself (I am not talking about language) are dying out. All too often during those two weeks I was at very sumptuous receptions where the champagne was flowing and sometimes almost the caviar as well. That is the marketing generation with its affluent lifestyle, because the Olympic Games are expensive, marketing is omnipresent and the businesses that feed the games have a lot of money. This generation could just as well organize a world convention of car salesmen in California as the Olympic Games, it would be exactly the same thing. Therefore, the values of the olympic movement which were expressed in the beginning in French, the very history of the Olympic Games, where do they come from, what do they represent, what are those values? This is something that this generation no longer talks about. By definition, the French language that was one of the founding ones finds itself on the way out.
I spoke to you about the specific elements, I went over them for you quickly, the weakness of the documentary framework. I have just referred to the general factors. There are factors specific to the Olympic Games: the weakness of the regulatory framework, and trust in good will. I felt very close to my origins when I heard that. You know, Madam, we have no need of laws or regulations; so long as we are speaking French, there will be no problem. People will end up some day or other learning to speak French and practising it at the Olympic Games.
Amongt these specific factors, there is also English as a young, stylish language, the language of the "sponsors" as the French say, the language of immediate communication. Everything goes faster if we say it in English and we know what it will cost because often we are told that this costs too much. This is something we have often heard in this country. These factors are very specific.
I would add to that that there is this kind of confidence in an absolute future. We are told that in Beijing, we will see, everything will go smoothly because the Chinese always follow the rules.
In Vancouver, everything will be perfect, we know that, but if this has no future, it is only because Canada is a country with two official languages and will foot most of the bill for the cost of bilingualism at the Vancouver Games. The next time, it will be the same old thing again and Canada cannot be considered as a model.
These are the elements that seem to endure, it seems to me, and they do not bode well for the future. I have made a certain number of recommendations primarily for the International Organization of the Francophonie and to the International Olympic Committee itself. I must say, however, that in my opinion there will be no solution so long as there is not a legal regulatory framework, and so long as the host cities are not obliged, from the moment when they are chosen, as an express condition, to demonstrate their ability, their will and their guarantee to respect the two official languages of the Olympic Games. That does not seem likely. I asked the question several times, even after the Olympic Games, and I admit to you that I got nowhere.
I hope that a committee like yours will work on such a recommendation, and will be in a position to make such a recommendation to the authorities that you have access to, and that I do not.
Those are my observations and comments. I deal with them more at length in the report, as well as giving some technical details on the people I met with here in Canada, and of course in Quebec. For those who would like to ask me questions in English, I would like them to know that they should feel comfortable doing so. When you work on a mission like this one, you have to be able to manage in both languages.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Bissonnette. We will begin questions with the vice-chair, Senator Champagne.
Senator Champagne: Thank you for taking the trouble to appear before our committee. I read your report from cover to cover with great interest. As you have just said, I believe that Canada will distinguish itself at the Vancouver Olympic Games. Your successor will have an even easier job.
One of your recommendations was for the IOF and the IOC to work together. You asked whether this issue was on the agenda in Bucharest. Even though I went, since I was a member of the team which accompanied the Prime Minister, I was not present at every meeting. However, I do not believe that it was on the agenda. The next Francophonie Summit will be in Quebec City in 2008. Do you think that we could persuade the IOF to make its case before the IOC?
Ms. Bissonnette: I should first give you the context in which I was working. My recommendations were for the IOF, which immediately took ownership of them, after which it was to give the report to the IOC. As far as I know, that was done. I was in Bucharest, and I made it clear that I was available, but as you know, the Bucharest Summit was dominated by other, more political issues. What was supposed to happen and what actually happened were different, and since you were there, you will understand what I am saying. So not much happened on this issue in Bucharest.
But you are right, it might be a good idea to study the report more closely, all the more so because in 2008, the Summit will be held after the Beijing Olympics. The Francophonie Summit is always held on the same date, and following one of our recommendations, the IOF has already appointed the next Grand Témoin de la Francophonie to the Beijing Olympic Games, whereas I was simply given a few months' notice, in September, at a time when the Games had been largely organized already. The IOF has just named a very prestigious person to succeed me, and he was flattered to be appointed. Mr. Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the former Primer Minister of France, graciously agreed to be the next Grand Témoin de la Francophonie for the Beijing Olympics. After he produces his report, you will have a very complete picture, which includes the winter and Summer Games, because I expect the situation to be even more difficult for the French language at the Summer Games. Generally speaking, winter Olympics are composed of seven sports. It is a very small enterprise, compared to the Beijing Games, which will be huge. After the last Winter Games and the next Summer Games, I believe that when the IOF meets in Quebec City, it will be in a position to conduct a very interesting analysis of the situation. In fact, the IOF could indeed officially request to put the issue on its agenda.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I would like to welcome you. I come from British Columbia. I am anxious to see that we pay heed to what you are saying. Therefore, I have some specific questions.
Have the organizers of the 2010 Olympic Games been in touch with you?
Ms. Bissonnette: Yes. I have been in touch with the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, VANOC, quite often, but mostly during the Olympics in Turin. They had a big house in Turin called Canada House. There was a long line of people wanting to visit "ma cabane au Canada." It was very popular. I have met with Mr. Furlong and part of his team. I have been reassured about what will happen in Vancouver. For example, they were already selling some Canadian products at Canada House. Those products were strictly bilingual. Everything was totally bilingual.
In my view, what you should watch for in Vancouver is not so much the formal aspects of the Olympics. Bilingualism will be much more respected in Vancouver than it was in Turin or Athens. It is easier because we are so used to official languages, and Canada's official languages, French and English, are the official languages of the Olympics. It is really facilitating. I am sure that they have this commitment. I have talked with them at length about it.
You should watch also for the informal aspects, that is, the volunteers, the language for the media, the communications, the day-to-day aspects of the Olympic Games, the capacity to really be bilingual and not only formally. That is important.
That will not be that easy in Vancouver, whatever people might think, which leads me to another comment. What I find a bit troubling — and that is sort of apart from your question — is that people should pay for French. The International Olympic Committee, the IOC, thinks English is the language for which you pay everything and whatever the cost of functioning in English is no problem for the Olympics, but functioning in French means that France, Canada and Quebec have to pay. You know that Quebec has a contract with VANOC. It was the same in Turin — the French were paying for the French in Turin.
If these Olympics are bilingual, why should the cost of functioning in one language be assumed by the host country? Why should French be optional? Why should it be the French, the Canadians and the Quebec government who pay? I find that very strange. It should not be the case.
It will be the case also in Vancouver. Most of the cost of the bilingualism in Vancouver will be paid for by British Columbia, Canada and the Province of Quebec.
Senator Jaffer: You said that the Vancouver organizers were in touch with you in Turin. Have they been in touch since then?
Ms. Bissonnette: Not since then. I hope that at some point they will call me and we will have a session. I told them in Turin that I would be available to work with them for one or two days. I would even go to Vancouver. However, they have been very busy. They know that I am available. They told me they would call me at some point.
Senator Jaffer: We have a French-speaking community in Vancouver. We also have an increasingly large French- speaking community whose members come from other parts of the world. Do you have any recommendations as to how this community can be used to assist? What I understand from you is that the official part will be in French. However, what are you saying about the language of operation and so on?
Ms. Bissonnette: I was not in a position to recommend anything with regard to Vancouver, because this was just a report and I was only an observer in Turin, so that was not my mandate. I have given quite a few interviews in B.C, because there was some interest in this, especially from Radio-Canada. I believe that the first line of volunteers should come from B.C. I understand that there will be some people from Quebec and other parts of the country where people speak French. I know quite well the French-speak communities from outside of Quebec, and I think it is very important that they be asked to work, not only as volunteers but also as part of the organization, because that is the problem. We need people not only to greet tourists but also to work with journalists and to work in the organization to remind people that they should work in both languages.
That is what was missing in Turin, and I understand that was the case in Athens also. It is not only a question of volunteers; it is a question of being part of the organizations.
You know that problem quite well. When I worked with VANOC in Turin, we worked in English. You have to be capable of functioning in the two languages and some thinking should go toward the organization itself.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your excellent report. I had the opportunity to sit on the management committees of two international events which were held in Edmonton, namely the World Athletic Championships in in 2001, and the World Masters Games in 2005. The same problems you describe in your report also occurred at these two events. We have our work cut out for us. I realized that you often have to be present at the very start when an event is organized.
The work we did in the six months preceding an event was not enough and that is often when the problems cropped up. Let me give you an example. A broadcasting contract was awarded to an American company which had no expertise in bilingual services. The contract was signed even before it was presented to the managing committee. We had to do a lot of work to correct the situation and even just to solve the problem. Despite our best efforts, the results were far from satisfactory.
There is never enough money when it comes to providing service in French, but it seems there is always enough money for the main events. There is no money for posters, organization and other activities. Either there was a lack of money, or organizers thought a request came in too late to support French.
All this goes to say that I find your idea of regulation to be a good one. Section 24 should be given more weight and include measures for its implementation. Given this context, what solutions would you propose for the Vancouver Olympic Games?
Ms. Bissonnette: We have no power regarding the regulatory framework of the games. That is up to the IOC. We can only make recommendations.
You have just talked about the media. You may have read the part in my report where I say that I am concerned about the language of broadcasting in Vancouver. In fact, reporters, and in particular television reporters, drew my attention to this matter. It is clear that most people watch the Olympics on TV and, I am told, increasingly, on the Internet. There are two types of problems. My remarks are addressed in particular to those interested in francophones who live in the other provinces.
CTV was awarded the broadcasting contract. This is causing a lot of worry for francophones living in the other provinces, because unless you have cable and can access a bilingual signal, you will not have access to French language coverage of the games, since CTV only broadcasts in English. French language coverage will only be accessible to those who pay for their cable television service. It is a problem we pointed out the moment it was announced that CTV had won the contract. When I was in Turin, I raised this problem several times and was told that solutions were being worked on. That is all I know, but the committee must keep a close eye on this matter.
The people who will be denied access to the games coverage in their own language will mostly be francophones who live outside Quebec, because there is limited cable access to French language programs.
The second problem has to do with the broadcasting of results in English only. My predecessor in Athens, Mr. Bourges, who works in television, had given a lot of weight to this problem. When you watch a hockey game or a downhill ski race, the competitors' times appear at the bottom of the screen along with their names. When there is commentary, it is in English only. Some people say that it does not matter because everyone understands this information, but the fact that French does not appear at the bottom of the screen is of huge symbolic importance. When we mentioned this to the TV people, they told us it was impossible to add French because it would be too expensive.
The only technical solution to this problem does not lie with simultaneous interpretation, because there can be no lag between the time the English and French appear. It has to happen at the same time. The only technical solution would be double mix-keying, which would enable some broadcasters to get the signal in French, and others in English. But we were told that this would be much too expensive. I was sick of hearing that, because as far as I know, nobody ever really evaluated what that meant. Radio-Canada journalists told me that it would simply mean having two people to key in the information, one in French and one in English. I do not think that would be too expensive. And even if it was, given how much the Olympics cost these days, I do not think it would be a lot of money compared to other expenses I am aware of. The great advantage we will have in Vancouver is that the situation will be very different from Turin or Athens. The IOC decided to be the host broadcaster rather than selling production rights to Vancouver. The IOC will produce the images, whereas in Turin, it was TOBO, which depended on TOROC, the organizing committee. If Vancouver followed the Turin model, broadcasters would be dependent on VANOC, but it seems that the IOC will be producing the images. I suppose that will be done for financial reasons, but I am not sure.
Under these circumstances, if the IOC produces the images and the official languages are French and English, I believe it would be a good opportunity to test the situation. None of the technical reasons given by the experts hold water. As information technologies progress, it will become increasingly easier to do this type of thing and it will depend much more on political will rather than cost, because cost is simply a pretext.
Senator Tardif: They often become sponsors for financial reasons. Whoever pays the most gets the broadcast rights. There is no obligation to respect the language.
Ms. Bissonnette: In that case, it does not involve CTV, but rather those who produce the signal. CTV is the broadcaster, but who produces the signal? In Turin, it was an organization called TOBO which made the images available to broadcasters. That would be NBC for the United States, I believe, and CTV for Canada. CTV will be the broadcaster, but for the first time at the Games in Vancouver, the IOC will make the images available. This is very important because the IOC will decide whether to display the information in English only or in both English and French. We have to be vigilant on this matter, and its technical aspect could be studied more closely. If you go to Vancouver, it may be worth taking a closer look at these issues. IT is a way of life in public libraries today. If we can make miracles happen with our budgets, I imagine that the IOC can do even more.
Senator Losier-Cool: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to hear from you. This is very interesting and every time you say something, I feel like adding something else. I will try to limit what I say because I know that this committee will certainly, when we go to Vancouver, promote French as much as possible at every level, including in the areas of communications or with sponsors. I would like to come back to this truth you spoke about and which tears me apart, namely that French is the founding language of the Olympics. I do not know if you can advise the committee on how to get the Olympic movement to come back to its true values? Should these values be included in the selection criteria for cities that will host the games? We are already expected to ask for a greater presence of the French language, but would you have more specific recommendations which we could include in our report?
Ms. Bissonnette: I have already indicated in my report that there is a strong relationship between the two issues. It would already be good if we could resist the strong trend towards unilingualism, because that it what is happening within the Olympic movement; perhaps not so much in Vancouver, but that will certainly be the case in Beijing. I met with people from Beijing and Turin, and it was clear that the French language had a minimal presence. But if we managed to reinstate French not only as a formal language, but a language which was actually spoken at the games, if we managed to advance French and reverse the trend, it would get people to think about the values of the Olympics. Today, the only arguments which are made revolve around money. The Olympics are big business. If two languages were actually spoken at the Olympics, rather than one, which would be much easier, it would distinguish the games from other international events. I believe that Canada, with its two official languages, has a golden opportunity to lead the way. I do not see where else it could happen. Good luck to Mr. Raffarin. When I met the person who was responsible for coordinating languages in Beijing — this person did not really speak French, but knew who Léon Daudet was — his perception of the French language was completely romantic, and he told me that his bosses asked him, "Why do that?" The Beijing Games are a huge, expensive machine and they really do not care about the Olympic Summer Games languages. Canada has two opportunities. The first one is that Canada's two official languages happen to be those of the Olympics, and the second is that the Winter Games are much smaller. They could serve as an example. Generally speaking, there are seven winter sports which play out in various disciplines. There is skating, hockey, skiing and so on. It is not a huge event and would be the opportunity to show that we can do it, that it is possible and that this could create a foundation for the future. So whoever organizes the games should be able to do the same thing. If the Vancouver Games were bilingual, we would reinstate a former situation and get people to think about the origins and the significance of the games. I am convinced that the day when only English is spoken at the Olympics — and I apologize to my anglophone colleagues on this committee — and that day is approaching rapidly, the Olympics will have lost their soul because they will no longer represent cultural diversity. In Turin, you could hear the crowd. It was very touching to see all these young people enter the stadium. Amongst each other they spoke English because it was the common language. When a Swede met a Flemish-speaking Belgian in a line-up, they would generally speak English. But you could sense the strong language diversity, which is threatened elsewhere in the world. If the Olympic movement wanted to be different and showed in Vancouver that it can be different, this would be significant and would address the issue you have raised, and represent a contribution. Of course, we would not entirely reverse the trend with regard to Olympic values, but it would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this is not happening.
I repeated this several times to people in Turin, they listened and thought it was all very cute and nice and interesting, but I really did not feel that they wanted to go ahead with it.
Senator Losier-Cool: It is often about money, but sometimes there are other reasons as well. You said that you attended many receptions held during these major events, and I admit that parliamentarians have also taken advantage of these opportunities and have been scandalized at their cost. So it is not necessarily a question of money, is it?
Ms. Bissonnette: No. I am absolutely convinced that money has nothing to do with it. It is really a question of political will. It is a debate we are familiar with in Canada. I have lived through almost every major fight on official languages, and I entered journalism five years after the Official Languages Act was adopted. I also covered all the language fights francophones fought in other provinces, and the major constitutional battles. I have written hundreds and perhaps even thousands of pages on the subject. We all know that money is always the last excuse. People will tell you they cannot translate something because it is too expensive. Over time, we got used to translation and find that it does not cost so much after all. It is true that translation is expensive, but if you have the will, you will find the way. That is all. I believe that lack of money is even less of an excuse for the Olympic movement than for municipal governments or other organizations because the IOC is swimming in money. So it would not be that expensive to pay for translators and interpreters to restore equality between English and French.
When you hear people tell you there is not enough money, take it with a grain of salt.
Senator Losier-Cool: How did the IOF receive your report? Was there a reaction from member countries of the Francophonie?
Ms. Bissonnette: I met with Mr. Diouf and Mr. Clément Duhaime. When I began working on my report, Mr. Duhaime was Quebec's Delegate General in France, and now he is what you could call the number 2 man of the Francophonie, namely the general administrator of the Francophonie. He works with Mr. Diouf. I must say that these two gentlemen were extremely welcoming. The IOF made the report public and had it distributed throughout Europe and elsewhere as well. That was very well done. As for what is happening at the institutional level and whether there have been discussions between the IOF and the IOC, I must admit that I really do not know. Perhaps you should ask that question of the IOF. I have not spoken with them since. Even when I was in Bucharest, the leaders of the IOF were very busy. As for the other member countries of the Francophonie, that is a good question, it is the first time it has been put to me, but the answer is no.
Senator Losier-Cool: I was just curious.
Ms. Bissonnette: Truth be said, no. I got some feedback from people to whom I sent the report to, but there is no official reaction from certain countries or National Olympic Committees.
Senator Comeau: You were mandated by Mr. Diouf to observe the situation at the Olympics. Do you not think it would have been a good idea for you to also attend the next Olympic Games because this would ensure, if you will, continuity? That way, you could compare two sets of games, rather than Mr. Raffarin fulfilling that role and perhaps having a different point of view. If you did the follow-up, there would be some continuity.
Ms. Bissonnette: That is interesting. I could say jokingly that after 15 days in Turin, I was very glad to be home again, especially since I am not very athletic and that after a certain amount of time, I was getting tired of going to all these sporting events, even though it is always beautiful to watch. It is a privilege to be at the Olympics. Who would have believed that one day, I would have a front-row seat at the Olympics? Of course, I enjoyed the experience, despite the heart-breaking defeat of our hockey players. But on a more serious note, I would say that I do believe the IOF has specific reasons to appoint a new observer. It was done for geopolitical reasons, as it is sometimes called in other areas. You want people from different countries and you want to avoid creating a diplomatic incident. Why was I the right person for Turin? Well, they did not want a Frenchman — if Mr. Bourges had been appointed again — to tell Italians what to do. Given the history of Franco-Italian relations, it was thought that it might be better to get someone from another country. Also, the IOF decided that it would be preferable to have someone from a northern country who could relate better to Olympic Games, if you will. It is more or less for these reasons that I was appointed and I would be surprised if this way of doing things changed.
Senator Comeau: I fully understand that. One of your recommendations was to create permanent ties between the IOC and the OIF.
Ms. Bissonnette: Yes.
Senator Comeau: Did you get any feedback from the OIF? Was there any response to your recommendation?
Ms. Bissonnette: I have not received any feedback since the release of my report. You must understand that the reason I made that recommendation was because things were a bit up in the air. I had a look at my notes earlier. Very early on in my mission, I was told that there was a possibility of striking a kind of permanent agreement between the IOC and the OIF, a sort of framework agreement dealing with all these issues. However, the IOC did not follow up on the OIF's proposal. So, things are up in the air. I think that the OIF would like to have a framework agreement with the IOC. I cannot tell you, however, what progress has been made in this regard because after my report was tabled, my mission was over. They are under no obligation to provide me with the details of their efforts.
Senator Comeau: That would certainly help with one of your recommendations which stated that the conditions for the Grand Témoin de la Francophonie's visit should be improved by providing, for example, an appropriate accreditation process.
Ms. Bissonnette: It was very hard. It is an important matter. People have the sense that I simply said I was not treated in a manner befitting my status. That is not true. Things went well. I think that to demonstrate how important the French language is, regardless of who the person is, more most be done. I had a lot of trouble when it came to access. I was not treated in a manner befitting the representative of the francophone nations. I often found that quite surprising. In some ways, I consider that this had something to do with the way French is scrupulously neglected. I was welcomed by the IOC officials, by a number of people holding official positions within the IOC. I went to their hotel, I went through all the security checks, and so on and so forth, but basically, I should have been much closer to where the action was. I should have had the appropriate accreditation so that I did not have to go through four security checks and ask for a meeting over and over again for three days running. That is something which is very important for next time. I imagine things might be a little easier for the next Grand Témoin, given that he is the former Prime Minister of France.
Senator Comeau: The underlying problem you are pointing to is the absence of a regulatory framework under section 24. I gather that since we are discussing regulation 24, there must be at least 23 other regulations. Is there any regulatory framework around most of the regulations?
Ms. Bissonnette: It is one of the regulations lacking such a framework. Some host city security obligations, on the other hand, are extremely well-defined and this is understandable. This is one of the rules which have no such framework, however, and as such, it is open to interpretation. When this is pointed out, people say "Why don't you have a regulatory framework?" We are told that it is subject to a contract with the host city. And if you take a look at the contract, it looks fine. The host city undertakes to provide a framework in both languages, which, even so, is not terribly binding. So there are two ways of going about things. Either you develop an extremely rigid regulatory framework or you deal with it later. That is my understanding at least. When a host city is chosen, it is told, "You do know that you have to operate in both languages." They say yes, but it is too late. If they do not comply, what sanctions do they face? We should be telling cities which make a bid to stage the Olympics that they must make commitments set in stone when it comes to official languages, and they will have to demonstrate how they intend to meet these commitments. It is quite a different situation when steps are taken beforehand rather than waiting for a city to be chosen and then asking it to respect the official languages. I think the absence of such a regulatory framework, or something similar to it, is very serious.
Senator Comeau: I very much appreciate the work you have done.
Senator Murray: The selection of the city to host the Olympic Games is the culmination of a very long process. I do not understand exactly how it works, but there seems to be a competition process, a series of elimination rounds after which three or four candidate cities remain. There is broad media coverage.
Why don't IOC authorities require cities competing to host the games to demonstrate, very early in the process, that they can comply with language requirements?
Ms. Bissonnette: I do not know, and this is something I have repeated many times. I do not know why, and I do not wish to impute motives.
Senator Murray: It is not as if there were no francophones on the IOC. Mr. Rogge is French?
Ms. Bissonnette: Mr. Rogge is of Flemish origin, but he speaks French very well.
Senator Murray: There is also René Fasel of Switzerland, as well as Maurice Ray.
Ms. Bissonnette: Both those gentlemen also speak French very well.
Senator Murray: Mr. Rasan Palenfo of the Ivory Coast is a francophone.
Ms. Bissonnette: Those are among the IOC members I met, though obviously the IOC is very large and has many more members. I imagine that if Ottawa or Seattle were to apply to host the Olympic Games, they would receive a very imposing package of specifications. They would have to prove that the mountains were high enough, that they had enough police officers, and that they could guarantee the security of heads of State. Candidate cities must demonstrate that they meet extensive equipment and security requirements.
But they are not asked to prove a great deal about language, and in my view that is the aspect we should insist on. People assume, or perhaps fear, that if language requirements are imposed, fewer cities would be interested in hosting the games.
I may be wrong, perhaps. But I believe language is considered a secondary issue. Essentially, that is exactly what my report says. French is wonderful when it comes to presenting medals to athletes, it sounds elegant during formal ceremonies, it is a wonderful reminder of Pierre de Coubertin, but in practice — it is not very important.
In my view, everything that follows, all the deficiencies that we see again and again, arise from that root cause; we come back to the fact that language is not considered very important. English is the language of international communications. Why worry about French? When I met with Mr. Castellani, the President of TOROC, in Turin, he said: "Ms. Bissonnette, listen to my opening speech." I heard his opening speech, which was made in all three languages. He was very proud, and with good reason. The language issue was not dealt with very well in Athens — everything was done in English, not even in Greek.
French is given a fairly significant role in the ceremonial part of the games, but is not given much prominence day- to-day. However, I would say we cannot blame just TOROC or the IOC. I have interviewed former colleagues, who stated that not having dealings in French bothered them only rarely.
They are so used to working with English-language documents. They would of course prefer to receive communications in French, but when you work at Radio-Canada and are covering your tenth Olympic Games, you want the results now, not after they have been translated. You do not want to wait.
Those people are right in the heat of the action. They say it would be great to have French, but basically they do not find the lack of it very serious.
Senator Murray: You have drawn up a series of recommendations that seem very reasonable to me. Looking at the list of IOC members, I see that francophone countries do have a critical mass.
Ms. Bissonnette: What is more, it seems that IOC meetings in Lausanne are often conducted in French, though that does not translate over to the Olympic Games themselves. I hear that the English translation is occasionally poor. Thus, it seems that in Lausanne IOC documents are often translated from French to English.
Even though we are told that both official languages are always respected within the IOC, that is not necessarily what we see on the ground during the Olympics.
Senator Murray: Will Mr. Raffarin be the observer in Beijing? Will he also be the observer in Vancouver?
Ms. Bissonnette: To my knowledge, he will only be at the Beijing Games and I have no idea who will be the observer in Vancouver. I had asked that the Grand Témoin de la Francophonie be named as soon as a host city is chosen. No one has yet been appointed for Vancouver, but it should happen shortly.
Mr. Bourges was named almost on the eve of the Athens Games. I was named in July and went on my first mission in September. Mr. Raffarin has already been named for the 2008 Games, so the situation is improving. As for Vancouver, if a Grand Témoin de la Francophonie had already been chosen, I would know.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are running out of time. I will therefore accept only two brief questions followed by two brief answers.
Senator Robichaud: Who is responsible for the third language?
Ms. Bissonnette: The host country.
Senator Robichaud: But in Vancouver, will there be a third language?
Ms. Bissonnette: No.
Senator Robichaud: Do you think that the Vancouver Games will take the opportunity to put English and French on the same footing?
Ms. Bissonnette: It all depends on VANOC. I met with VANOC representatives in Turin several times. There was positive talk about bilingualism. But we do not know what will happen once the Games begin in Vancouver. We do not know what will happen in less formal areas, such as products or the official language on documents. But I have no reason to think that it will be bad.
In fact, I think the situation will be better than in Turin, but it really depends on VANOC and the IOC. What I do fear, however, is that things work out well in Vancouver, but that four years later, at the Winter Olympics, we will have to start anew because people will say that things worked out very well in Vancouver, but there will not have been any follow-up. I would like Vancouver to prepare for bilingualism and to then become a model for future organizers of Winter Olympics to follow. In fact, it should become mandatory. This would represent major progress.
Senator Champagne: There is one thing I do not agree on. You deplore the fact that in Turin, during the opening and closing ceremonies, there was no French. I must admit that the absence of French during these ceremonies bothers me the least. At the Beijing Games, I would much rather learn about Chinese culture and hear Chinese music rather than hear someone sing in French.
I found it much nicer to hear Andrea Bocelli sing Ama credi e vai in Turin rather than hearing someone sing a song in French just because French is one of the IOC's official languages. For me the language of the host country is very important.
Ms. Bissonnette: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly in the report, but there were transitional moments during the ceremonies. And these transitions were conducted only in English and Italian. The languages which were spoken were either English or Italian. That is what I meant.
I would like to add another small detail. The closing ceremony was a bit multicultural. There were things from all over the world. However, in what was shown of Canada, I unfortunately only heard a few words of French. I do not know why and did not receive any explanation.
It was part of the ceremony, so perhaps the organizers prepared the show with other people I do not know of, but unfortunately the Canadian part — because the 2010 Vancouver Games were announced — and I do not want to point fingers because sometimes the shows are organized by people who had not thought about this issue, but the people around me reacted to the lack of French.
Senator Champagne: I have extraordinary memories of Lillehammer, of Barcelona, of Victoria de los Angeles singing, so I think that it is important that the games have a local flavour.
Ms. Bissonnette: I agree with you.
Senator Champagne: There had to be at least a small issue in your report which I did not entirely agree with.
Ms. Bissonnette: I agree with you, but we were struck by something at the end of the show: it was a video which said "Bienvenue au Canada en 2010." In it, people were talking and were inviting the world to visit. These were not dignitaries, but ordinary Canadians. We are still vulnerable and it comes back to what I was saying a little earlier, namely that we have to be all the more vigilant.
Senator Champagne: It was just a little joke.
The Chairman: I would like to warmly thank you for having appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. You no doubt saw that committee members were extremely interested in your report and in your presentation, and this was reflected in the question and answer period.
Ms. Bissonnette, you are indeed a great witness. On behalf of committee members, thank you very much and I wish you much success in your future endeavours.
Ms. Bissonnette: I greatly appreciate your interest because, as I said, since my report was published and the press conferences were held, I have not received much feedback. So I was very pleased to talk about the subject today. It was a mission I fulfilled with great pleasure and interest. I do appreciate the fact that you are studying this subject and I certainly hope others will do so before 2010.
The Chairman: Thank you. We will stand the meeting for several minutes.
[English]
We now have before us the Canadian Olympic Committee, which is the national not-for-profit organization responsible for all aspects of Canada's involvement in the Olympic movement. With us today we have Mr. Chambers, President, and Ms. Assalian, Executive Director. Welcome.
Michael Chambers, President, Canadian Olympic Committee: Madam Chairman, I will make the first part of our initial statement to the committee and then Ms. Assalian will speak.
I am appearing before the committee as President of the Canadian Olympic Committee. For your information, the position of president is an elected position. It is the highest position of authority on the COC. It is a volunteer position, as it is in virtually every national Olympic committee around the world. Indeed, President Rogge of the International Olympic Committee sits as a volunteer.
Ms. Assalian is our top person on the ground at an Olympic Games. She is responsible for all our operations at the Olympic Games, at the Olympic Winter Games and at the Pan American Games, the other multi-sport, multi-country games for which we are responsible. At each games we have an operation inside the village where the athletes and most of the coaches and many of their support personnel stay. We also have an operation outside the village, which we tag with the name Canada Olympic House. Most of its support staff remain outside the village.
At the Pan American Games, it is uncommon — in fact virtually never — that we have an outside Canada Olympic House because there is a not a demand for it, as few families and Canadians generally attend the Pan American Games.
The Canadian Olympic Committee is Canada's national Olympic committee. It derives its authority from being recognized by the IOC as Canada's national Olympic committee. In fact, internationally, I am often introduced to other colleagues not as the President of the COC but as President of the NOC.
Our role is defined in the Olympic Charter. The role includes the exclusive authority to designate which city, if any, may apply to the IOC to host a given Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games or Pan American Games. The role of the COC as laid down by the Olympic Charter also includes the exclusive power to name the athletes, coaches and support staff who will represent Canada at the Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games and Pan American Games.
An example of this in action is that for the 2010 games three Canadian cities wished to have the right to seek to host those games. They were Quebec City, Calgary and Vancouver. It was up to the Canadian Olympic Committee to decide which of those three cities would be allowed to go forward to apply for the games. At the time that a games is awarded, a country is permitted to have only one city vie for the right to host.
In the end, as you know, Vancouver was chosen, in an extremely close vote. I recall it well. Vancouver was successful against Salzburg, Austria and PyeongChang, South Korea in securing the games. Both Salzburg, Austria and PyeongChang, South Korea are competing to host the next Winter Games. They are joined by Sochi, Russia, the third country short-listed by the IOC to host the 2014 games. That will be decided by the IOC in session in Guatemala City next July.
The Olympic Charter lists many other roles for the COC, all of which are important but not, perhaps, as relevant to our discussions today. Those roles include the propagation of the principles of Olympism and the fight against doping in sport, which of course is a very important issue to us.
The COC itself traces its roots back to the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association, which was founded in 1881. The COC itself was first officially formed as the Canadian Olympic Association in 1909. It incorporated itself under that name under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act in 1949. In 2002, although remaining an incorporated not-for- profit organization under the Canada Corporations Act, it changed its name to the Canadian Olympic Committee, and that is the name under which we operate today.
I remember that the debate regarding changing our name included those in favour of the change arguing the case for it on the basis that once we became the COC our acronym would be the same in French and English, which was not the case when we were the Canadian Olympic Association.
The COC membership includes 51 sports — 32 Olympic summer sports, 13 Olympic winter sports and six sports that compete exclusively on the program of the Pan American Games.
Under the Olympic Charter, there are 28 Olympic summer sports and seven Olympic winter sports. The reason we have higher numbers in our Olympic summer sports and Olympic winter sports is that some sports, such as skiing, we break down into individual disciplines. We recognize a national cross-country skiing organization. We recognize a national freestyle skiing organization. We recognize a national alpine skiing organization. To the IOC those are all one sport — skiing. The same applies in the summer sports with aquatics, water polo and synchronized swimming.
Our membership also includes an athlete representative from each of the 51 member sports. Our board of directors, our executive committee and all of our officers, except for the CEO, sit as volunteers.
The COC is operated by a paid staff of about 45 people, headed by our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Chris Rudge, whose position is known internationally as that of Secretary-General.
The COC maintains four offices. The CEO works at the corporate headquarters in Toronto. Our sport office, headed by Ms. Assalian, is in Ottawa. We have an office in Montreal, which is the centre of our athlete relations, covering the country from Newfoundland to British Columbia and as far north as we go. We have a small office in Vancouver, which is located in the same premises as the VANOC offices.
The Canadian Olympic Committee is responsible for the Canadian team at the Olympic Games and the Olympic Winter Games, as well as at the IOC-recognized, continental multi-sport competition for the Americas, the Pan American Games. The next Pan American Games will take place in Rio de Janeiro next July.
We describe our operations at games as games missions. The head and chief spokesperson of any one of our games missions is the chef de mission of the Canadian team at that games, a position that is recognized by the Olympic Charter and appointed by the executive committee of the COC. An assistant chef de mission is chosen by each chef de mission and approved by the executive committee of the COC. Our chef de mission in Turin was Mr. Shane Pearsall, a former national team hockey player, and his assistant chef de mission was Ms. Sylvie Bernier, a gold medallist in diving at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games.
Our chef de mission for next year's Pan American Games in Rio de Janeiro is Ms. Tricia Smith, a silver medalist in rowing at the 1984 Los Angeles games. Her assistant chef de mission, officially announced only last week, I believe, is Mr. Jacques Cardyn, an Olympian and Pan American gold medalist in fencing. Our chef de mission for the 2008 Beijing games is Ms. Sylvie Bernier, who was our assistant in Turin. The announcement of Ms. Bernier's assistant chef is to be made shortly.
Our chef de mission for the Vancouver games has not yet been selected. Our process is that we name our chef de mission about two years prior to a given games.
The Canadian team at the games, as will be the case in Vancouver, is serviced by a support team made up of some volunteers and some paid COC staff. The support team includes health care personnel, that is, doctors, physiotherapists, massage therapists and sports psychologists, among others; communications and media support personnel, who assist the athletes particularly in dealing with the tremendous weight of the media pressure that is upon them at the games; and an athlete ombudsperson to whom an athlete can go with any issue at any time of day or night.
Most of the support team members live in the Olympic or Pan American village with their athletes and coaches. There is not enough room in the village to house all the support staff of all the countries, so Canada always has a few living outside the village, as do other large countries.
In addition, the COC has a support team that operates and services its Canada Olympic House operations, again made up of a mix of volunteers and paid staff. All of those individuals reside outside the village.
The Olympic Charter makes it clear that when the IOC awards any games, it awards them to both the national Olympic committee of the country and the host city, in our case Vancouver for the 2010 games. However, the Olympic Charter also makes it clear that the financial responsibility for the games rests jointly with the host city and the organizing committee of the games. No financial responsibility is laid on the shoulders of the national Olympic committee.
The COC is not a financial contributor to the organization of the games, except to the extent that, like any other national Olympic committee that has athletes at the games, it contributes financially to the support of the Canadian team that will be participating in the games.
The COC and its Olympic sport member national sport federations have set as our goal that Canada have the highest total medal count at the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. We were fourth overall in Salt Lake City. We became third overall in Turin, and it is our goal to be first overall in Vancouver. It is our collective intent to meet that goal in Vancouver.
[Translation]
Caroline Assalian, Executive Director, Olympic Preparation and Games: Section 24 of the Olympic Charter makes French and English the official languages of the IOC. The COC has its own official languages policy which expressly recognizes French and English as its official languages. This policy-in-action is exemplified by the following: the COC bylaws are published and available to our members and the general public in French and English. All COC policies are published in both French and English. All COC press releases are simultaneously issued in both French and English. All corporate reports, such as the COC annual report and annual audited financial statements, are published and distributed both in French and English. Further, our Website is available both in French and English.
Our COC staff has a good mixture of French and English language skills. Any positions that are publicly advertised are advertised in newspapers of general circulation in both the French and English language. Specific to the Olympic Games, the following are some examples of the COC's respect, recognition and consideration given to both official languages. Our Athlete Agreement is made available to our athletes in the language of their choice, French or English. Zeus, our online games information and registration system, is provided in both official languages.
Our mission staff agreements are provided in the language of choice of each support team member. Our Games related policies, including importantly our team selection policy and our antidoping policy, are published and distributed in both official languages. Our Excellence Series gatherings have simultaneous interpretation in the English and French language provided to all participants. These are gatherings in which we bring together Canada's Olympic hopeful athletes with Canadian athletes who have won medals to share the experiences that led to their success. Our support team selection process ensures that Canada's athletes at the games are able to communicate with the support team staff members with whom they deal at the games in either official language.
The COC ensures that all signage in and about Canadian offices and residences in the Olympic Village and at Canada Olympic House is in both official languages. Our Emergency Preparedness Response Plan is communicated to all of our team members in the official language of their choice and may be actioned, if the need arises, in the language of their choice. Athlete ombuds services at the games are available to athletes in the official language of their choice. At official functions of the COC that take place at the games, both of Canada's official languages are respected and appropriately included in any oral presentations.
[English]
Mr. Chambers: Another important service that is provided in both official languages at a games is the media guide or official handbook wherein we describe the background of all of our Olympic athletes. That is provided to the media in both official languages at the same time. Others get it as well, but the group that is most interested is, of course, the media who will have to report on the games as they take place.
Ms. Assalian mentioned some of the things we provided. I was thinking as she was speaking that at the Turin Games it was rather odd but, for the most part, the only place there was bilingual signage was in the Canadian area of the Olympic village. It is our policy, of course, to have all our signage in both official languages. I spend most of my time running from event to event at the Olympic Games to support our Canadian athletes. The signage in Turin was mostly, if not absolutely, unilingual English. It was obvious. One noticed it because it was somewhat strange. The one little oasis of dual language signage was Canada Place in the Olympic Village.
That completes our presentation.
Senator Murray: The COC membership includes 51 sports plus 51 athlete representatives from each sport. You have a board of directors, an executive committee and officers. Which of those groups makes the decision as to which of the various Canadian cities will be the host city?
Mr. Chambers: The board of directors.
Senator Murray: How many people are on the board?
Mr. Chambers: There are approximately 75 people on the board. It does not function as a board of directors. Our executive committee is our effective board of directors.
Senator Murray: How many are on that?
Mr. Chambers: The executive committee numbers 15 people.
Senator Murray: In order to select the city among the three or four candidates, 75 people have a vote?
Mr. Chambers: Correct.
Senator Murray: Is there a list of the names of those people?
Mr. Chambers: The names are on our website, but we can provide you with a hard copy list, if you wish.
Senator Murray: Among other things, I would be interested to know the balance between anglophone and francophone representation.
Mr. Chambers: This is rather anecdotal, but for your information, there are two vice-presidents of the COC and both are francophone, Jean Dupré and Walter Sieber.
Senator Murray: When Vancouver was chosen as the Canadian city, how many other cities were in the competition?
Mr. Chambers: There were also Calgary and Quebec City.
Senator Murray: I presume that, as president, you were one of the 75 people?
Mr. Chambers: I was, yes.
Senator Murray: When the cities made their presentations, were they questioned about their ability and willingness to operate in both languages? Did any of them volunteer that they could operate fully or satisfactorily in both languages?
Mr. Chambers: None of them presented their bid from that angle and my recollection is that no questions specifically of that nature were asked.
Senator Murray: It was not a trump card any of the cities wanted to play and it was not a matter anyone on the committee particularly wanted to ask about?
Mr. Chambers: I suppose, reflective of Ms. Bissonnette's comments, there was an assumption that all would be up to the task, being in Canada. Given a limited time for questions, we did not ask questions to which we already felt we knew the answers.
Senator Murray: It is interesting because the promotional campaign is considerable, as you know better than we do. Cities are always competing in various ways. The city of Moncton, which was the site of some celebrated language wars in my lifetime, is now advertising in its industrial and economic promotional literature that it is bilingual and can operate well in both languages.
In her report, under recommendations, Ms. Bissonnette calls on the International Olympic Committee.
[Translation]
She asks them to take very clear action at each Olympic Games to ensure that national Olympic committees are reminded of their official language obligations and are obliged to produce results.
[English]
I wonder how you would define your obligations as the national committee with respect to languages.
Mr. Chambers: Are you referring to languages at the Olympic Games or generally?
Senator Murray: At the games. I see here in your presentation that you do operate in both languages, but for the Olympics themselves, I do not have a clear idea as to where your obligations begin and end and where the obligations of the host city and organizing committee begin and end in respect of languages. She says very clearly that the host city has to be reminded by the IOC of its obligations in the matter of official languages. I wondered whether you have a sense of what the obligations of our national committee or organization are in that respect.
Mr. Chambers: Yes. I believe our obligation, in respect of official languages, is to promote the free and comfortable use of both languages in our operations and in particular by our athletes and coaches at the Olympic Games.
It is sometimes confused by the public. Although we are a National Olympic Committee, it sounds like we are a committee of something. We are not a committee of anything; we are just called a committee. We are not a committee of the IOC, though we are recognized by the IOC. We are not even a member of the IOC. The members of the IOC are just the IOC members. We are an entity created in Canada, called a National Olympic Committee, which the IOC has deemed to baptize as Canada's National Olympic Committee, so we do not have any particular influence within the IOC. We do not attend IOC meetings.
Senator Murray: I appreciate that. Is it rule 24 or rule 27?
Mr. Chambers: It is rule 24. It used to be rule 27.
Senator Murray: Have you thought about what rule 24 means for your body? It does not mean anything for your body as a Canadian organization; you operate in both languages.
Mr. Chambers: We are not motivated to provide our dual language services at a games or in-between games because of what the Olympic Charter says; we are motivated to do that because we are Canadians, and because of the spirit and intent of the Official Languages Act, it is our members' wish.
As was mentioned by Ms. Bissonnette, that is one line in a very long Olympic Charter that has no regulations, which are called bylaws by the way, in the Olympic Charter attached to it, and it would be interesting to ask the IOC what they thought their obligations were, if any, as opposed to simply a statement that the two languages are the official languages of the IOC.
Senator Murray: To what extent have you been on top of the Vancouver situation to ensure that the two official languages are fully respected in all aspects of the games? Have you made that your business as a national committee?
Mr. Chambers: We have indirectly, in that as President of the Olympic Committee I am automatically a sitting member of the board of directors of the Vancouver organizing committee, VANOC. In addition to that, because of the agreement with the bid committee, the COC is entitled to seven seats on that 20-seat board, so through our questions and prodding at the board we ensure that this issue is being pursued. I named one of my two vice-presidents, Walter Sieber, to be a member of the board and I can assure you that Mr. Sieber and, to this point, Ms. France Chrétien- Desmarais, another board member, have been very close to the ground, so to speak, in ensuring that something is developed and soon implemented by VANOC.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I am very happy about the efforts made by the COC to promote both official languages within your organization. However Dyane Adam, the outgoing Official Languages Commissioner, had produced a number of reports in 2000 and 2003 in which she stated that French and English did not always enjoy the same status in Canada's sports, and that the administrative structures in the sport sector are not sufficient to ensure programs can be managed in both official languages.
She added that, in 2003, the bilingual capacity of national sport organizations was not yet up to meeting expectations, either in the services offered by national offices or in language training for coaches. This resulted in repercussions on the overall development of francophone athletes, many of whom are coached by unilingual coaches on national teams.
Has anything been done since 2003 in response to those criticisms? Can you tell us what you are now doing to remedy those deficiencies, particularly with respect to the 2010 Olympic Games?
[English]
Mr. Chambers: Once again I want to preface my answer with the statement that the national sport federations, although they are members of our organization, are not organizations over which we have controlling authority. They just choose to join us. They do not exist because of us.
That said, we believe that our example of ensuring that coaches who participate in the Olympic Games will experience comfort in the French language or the English language for the services they require in order to coach their athletes will be seen by our member federations as beneficial to them. Reports state that athletes struggle through the lack of French-language coaching services, and unfortunately they have to struggle through it. Great athletes struggle through anything, including linguistic barriers. However, to the extent that French-language coaching services are not available where they should be, Canada, as a sporting country and as an Olympic participating nation, suffers because there is talent that is not making its way through the system. There are barriers to advancement because of the inability to compete as best one could with having the facility of one's own language during training.
We at the Canadian Olympic Committee ensure that at an Olympic Games and in our interactions with coaches, there is an unqualified comfort for French-speaking coaches to receive the services they require in order to coach their athletes or to bring their athletes to the Olympic Games in the language of their choice, which then reflects upon the service they can provide to their athletes who speak the same language.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: If I understand correctly, you serve as a model, but you have no authority to impose the conditions you have been talking about?
[English]
Mr. Chambers: No, we have no authority in that the national sport federations are independently organized and operated. They are not required to report to us. They become members of the Canadian Olympic Committee in order to ensure that they are part of the planning for an Olympic Games, but their annual meetings take place independently of the COC. We are not the parent company and they are not the subsidiary. We have no right to direct what they do. One could say that perhaps indirectly we might, because they do receive some of their funding from the COC, but the funding is very small for most, if not all, national sport federations compared to the funding they receive through the Sport Canada contributions, which would have a much greater impact upon what they might or might not do.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Then to whom do sports federations report?
[English]
Mr. Chambers: Like most independent organizations, they are accountable to their own members.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: But the federations select the athletes who represent Canada, don't they?
[English]
Mr. Chambers: They actually nominate their best athletes to the Canadian Olympic Committee, which chooses the athletes to represent Canada at the Olympic Games.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: According to your comments, you provide services to athletes in both official languages. But do athletes use those services, or do they rather tend to use English because it is faster?
How much use do athletes make of the services you provide in both official languages?
[English]
Mr. Chambers: Our services are used in both languages. Our operation at the Olympic Games is set up so that athletes who come to an athlete services table and speak in French are immediately responded to in French. There is not even a little hurdle for athletes to go over in order to feel comfortable and to live in the village in the language their choice, be it English or French.
It may happen that outside of Olympic Games events, such as a presentation given to a gathering of athletes on how to prepare for their sport, athletes may not avail themselves of a service. The report published last year for Sport Canada indicated that not all but certainly most French-speaking athletes are also comfortable with and understand the English language, whereas in the reverse situation the percentage is not nearly so high. A group of French-speaking athletes to whom a presentation is being made might not make use of translation services and will simply allow the meeting to continue in English. Some have suggested this may not be due to the extreme situation of not wanting to make waves because an athlete might not make the team but, rather, in the chemistry of the meeting the athlete does not want to seem different from the others, so he or she will go along with things and will participate English. That is one circumstance. Ms. Assalian is closer to the bone there than I am.
[Translation]
Ms. Assalian: I must confess that our simultaneous interpretation services are not used at all.
Senator Robichaud: But if I understand your explanation correctly, there are francophone athletes who have not been using the services. Does that mean presentations are made in English?
Ms. Assalian: Yes. However, we find simultaneous interpretation is not useful during the games themselves, because things are done less formally. So everything we provide is in both official languages, because athletes and coaches must be comfortable with the services provided.
Senator Robichaud: When presentations are made, is the first language English, or does the presentation alternate between French and English?
Ms. Assalian: All presentation material is in both French and English. Presenters make presentations in English, or — less often — in French. When Sylvie Bernier, our mission leader, makes a presentation, she might make it in French or in English. If she makes it in French, then English-speaking athletes and coaches use simultaneous interpretation. However, we have observed that simultaneous interpretation is not used when presentations are made in English. But they are at least available.
Senator Losier-Cool: My question is quite short. How are the networks and communication media selected? A little while ago, Ms. Bissonnette said that CTV would be covering the whole Vancouver Games. Do you have anything to say about that selection?
[English]
Mr. Chambers: It is chosen by the IOC.
Senator Comeau: I was listening to the exchange you had with Senator Murray, Mr. Chambers. I had the impression that because this is Canada it is assumed that respect for the official languages will prevail. It is not even a matter of questioning it. That was evident during the evaluation of the three cities — Vancouver, Calgary and Quebec City. No one asked questions about respect for official languages and no one volunteered comments on it because, again, one assumes that because this is Canada official languages will be respected. I have always held the opinion that the word "assume," if you divide it into three parts, can make an ass out of you and me. That is why I am asking the question. Should these questions not be asked at such meetings?
Mr. Chambers: There certainly would be nothing wrong, and no harm, and perhaps a benefit to asking those questions. Frankly, the problem with asking those questions at a meeting of that nature is, as I said to Senator Murray, that you know what the answers will be. Yet the important thing is not how they answer the questions but what they will really do during the games.
Senator Comeau: By asking the questions, you get answers on the record. If respondents state categorically that they will respect bilingualism, they are buying into the commitment; they are making their intentions known on the record. If you do not ask the questions, that intent is never there on the record. The person, or the city, in this case, might not have bought into the commitment. A verbal commitment is better than no commitment.
Mr. Chambers: Yes, that is true. I think it would be known by most at the meeting that a written commitment will be required if they are actually chosen in any event. Once again, you would be asking a question to which you know they will say "yes, yes, yes," but it is how they will actually act that is important. We know we will get it from them in writing anyway if they are the selected city.
Senator Comeau: There will probably be a grand témoin from the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie looking at what will be happening in Whistler and Vancouver. What you do not want is the kind of comment you heard earlier today related by Ms. Bissonnette. I will relate just a few of them.
[Translation]
... Internet: better; volunteers: good; commercial side: very disappointing; French: non-existent; sports commentary: French completely absent; technical working meetings: conducted in English; the media: a complete catastrophe; TV signals: English only. We simply do not want comments of that sort to be made after the Olympic Games in Canada. This is not acceptable in Canada. This is why I believe people have to become involved from the very start in order to insure that this kind of deplorable result never happens. If the two languages are not taken into account, we will lose everyone's confidence. Those are my comments.
[English]
Mr. Chambers: I have been around the sport long enough not to trust oral representations in and of themselves. That is why we have big cities actually commit in a document to conducting their bid honouring and respecting both languages, as opposed to just relying on something that would be said.
I may say, VANOC has taken steps to ensure hopefully that such comments are not made. As you know, early on they entered into a bilateral agreement with the Province of Quebec to provide themselves with assistance and advice on how to incorporate the French language appropriately into their operations, et cetera. I hope and trust that that will be just the beginning of an execution at the games that respects as fully as one could imagine both languages, in Whistler and in Vancouver.
[Translation]
The Chairman: With the committee's indulgence, I will put the next question, which will be the last: As the Canadian Olympic Committee, you provided examples here that illustrate respect for and recognition of both official languages, as well as showing how important it is to consider them. But what would happen to your policy if you were no longer there? Are you doing this because you have no choice, or simply because you respect both official languages? Are you governed by a policy that requires you to provide such services, or are you providing them only out of good will? I am trying to determine whether or not your committee is subject to some kind of requirement.
[English]
Mr. Chambers: Our committee had adopted for itself an official languages policy that requires that these services be provided. I am not the crusader for this, but if Mike Chambers passes into the sunset and Caroline Assalian decides to hang up the skates, there is still a requirement for the people who follow us to implement these same measures.
[Translation]
The Chairman: That is what I was wondering.
Ms. Assalian: I think it is also much more than that. We want Canadian athletes and their coaches to do well at the Olympic Games. Even if there were no COC language policy, it would be imperative for us to insure that athletes and their coaches are comfortable at the Olympic Games. We are responsible for them at the Olympic Games. We consider it very important for athletes to be comfortable, because that is how they will perform best in the games environment.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming here today, to testify before our committee.
The committee adjourned.