Well, your hypothesis has been technically valid all along. It was technically valid before, during, and after the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That's not the point. They could also have saved a lot of money by not making the Olympic buildings accessible to the disabled, who will show up in Vancouver in smaller numbers than francophones from Quebec or New Brunswick, but they're not doing that either, are they?* Again, 'numbers served' is not the point.
The fact remains that bilingualism is only really mandatory for federal projects, which simply provides employment for an extra stable of bureaucrats in Ottawa who would otherwise be employed in any of that town's other, less-useful make-work projects. Official bilingualism is hardly a cure-all and is often silly, but it brought more peace and harmony at a cheaper price than a lot of other stupid things we've done at many times the cost.
Finally, there's some perspective: Even with the amount stuff they'll have to translate, I can guess by the volume that the Vancouver Olympics has retained the services of less than ten people for translation purposes - very possibly less than five people. The difference in actual printing and mounting of signs is minimal.
Disclosure: I think everyone should be heavily exposed to at least one more language in their youth, if not 3-5. And I don't mean these token classes you get, but some substantial learning. It seems to really improve kids' intellectual abilities and even their empathy and social understanding. So where other people think the policy only exists to humour a bunch of eastern cranks, renowned for yanking chains, I think circumstance has given us a rare gift.
*I'm sure you'll appreciate the comparison between Francophones and the disabled.
