Summary#
Bill 126, the La Francophonie Act, 2019, would repeal and replace Ontario’s French Language Services Act and make related changes to other Acts. Its stated goal is to protect and develop Ontario’s Francophonie (the French-speaking community and people with a special connection to French) and to improve equal access to services in French and English.
- Government agencies and public institutions would have to actively offer services in both languages, make public written communications bilingual, and ensure services provided on their behalf by third parties meet the Act’s requirements. The bill also sets out limited exemptions.
- The Legislative Assembly would operate in French and English. The Attorney General would have to arrange for regulations made after the Act takes effect to be translated into French.
- Courts and tribunals would have French and English as official languages. The bill would give people rights to use either language in proceedings, including a right to require a bilingual proceeding in specified circumstances.
- Government agencies and public institutions would have to prepare French-language services plans, consult the Francophonie, and appoint French Language Services Coordinators. The Minister would approve plans considered satisfactory.
- Municipalities could choose by by-law to operate in both languages. The City of Ottawa’s existing bilingualism by-law would count under the bill. A university could be designated only with its consent.
- The bill would continue the existing French-language services commissioner’s office under a new name, create a Commissioner of La Francophonie as an officer of the Assembly, and establish an advisory council, a language-rights support program and a promotion fund.
What it means for you#
- People using public services: You would be entitled to communicate with and receive services from covered government agencies and public institutions in French or English. Services must be actively offered in both languages. The bill does not cover every publicly funded service automatically: some organizations would need to be designated, and some services could be exempt.
- French-speaking people in court: You could use French in proceedings and, as a party who speaks French, require a bilingual proceeding. The bill sets rules for who hears bilingual proceedings and when interpretation or translations must be provided.
- Municipal residents: French-language municipal services would depend on whether the municipality has a by-law providing for them. Reducing those services would require public notice and consideration of comments.
- Universities: A university could be brought under the Act only if it consents to designation.
- Government agencies and public institutions: They would have to prepare plans within 365 days of Royal Assent, consult the Francophonie, appoint coordinators and provide required services. The bill also requires them to ensure necessary personnel are hired.
- Taxpayers: The bill does not set a tax, fee or fine.
Money#
The bill requires public funding for its purposes but gives no cost estimate.
- The language-rights support program would provide financial support for certain legal remedies; the government would have to establish it by regulation within 180 days of Royal Assent.
- The promotion fund would be a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, with money restricted to purposes listed in the bill.
- The Commissioner could employ staff and obtain premises and supplies. The Legislature would have to appropriate money for the Commissioner’s office and the Act’s other purposes.
- Agencies and institutions would have staffing and planning duties, but the bill gives no estimate of their costs or the number of staff needed.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not include the current French Language Services Act, so the exact changes to existing protections could not be verified against current law.
- Regulations would decide which additional organizations are covered, which services are exempt, and many details of plans, active offers, court procedures and the fund.
- The bill does not set out how much money the Legislature would appropriate, how much legal support the program would provide, or how the fund would be distributed.
- The bill uses “Francophonie” broadly, but does not explain how differing needs within that community would be weighed in plans.
- The materials do not state the bill’s current status. No publicly available information.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make French services easier to find and more consistent by requiring active offers, bilingual public communications and plans.
- It would give French speakers clearer rights in court, including a right to require a bilingual proceeding in specified cases.
- A Commissioner could investigate complaints or act on their own initiative, report findings and recommendations, and take part in legal proceedings. This could strengthen oversight.
- Requiring consultation and a university’s consent before designation could give affected groups a role in implementation.
Case against#
- The bill’s reach would depend partly on future regulations and exemptions. Until those are made, it is unclear which services and organizations would be covered.
- The bill creates new duties and offices but gives no cost estimate or staffing numbers. The required plans and service changes could therefore have significant, unquantified costs.
- A Commissioner may decline to investigate a complaint, and the bill does not require an investigation in every case.
- The bill gives the Minister a role in approving plans, but does not set detailed standards for what makes a plan satisfactory or how agencies must show progress.