Summary#
Bill 135, La Francophonie Act, 2019, would repeal Ontario’s French Language Services Act and replace it with a new law. Its stated goal is to protect and develop Ontario’s French-speaking community and move toward equal access to services in French and English.
- Government agencies and public institutions would have to actively offer services in both languages, make public signs and written communications bilingual, and prepare French-language services plans. Some services could be exempted under rules set by regulation.
- The bill would set rights and duties for courts and tribunals, including a right for a party who speaks French to require a bilingual proceeding. It sets conditions for those proceedings and requires some court and tribunal decisions to be published in both languages.
- Municipalities could choose to provide municipal administration and services in both languages by by-law. Ottawa’s bilingual character would be recognized, and its existing bilingualism by-law would count under the new law.
- A university could be designated as a government agency only with its consent. The Attorney General would then have to translate its enabling statutes and submit the translations to the Legislative Assembly for adoption.
- The bill would create an Advisory Council, a language-rights support program and a special account called the Fund for the Promotion of La Francophonie. It would also continue the Commissioner’s office under a new name; the Commissioner would be an officer of the Legislative Assembly.
- Government agencies and public institutions would each have to appoint a French Language Services Coordinator. The Office de la francophonie would have to ensure they hire the personnel needed to meet their obligations.
What it means for you#
- People using government services: You would have a right to communicate with and receive services from covered government agencies and public institutions in French or English. Those bodies would have to actively offer services in both languages. The bill allows an exemption where reasonable steps and proposals have been made, and requires these to be described in the body’s service plan.
- People dealing with courts or tribunals: You could use French or English in matters before them. If you speak French, you could require a bilingual proceeding. The bill sets specific requirements for who can hear such proceedings and, in some cases, for bilingual juries and interpretation. It does not say every hearing must be bilingual.
- Municipal residents: French-language municipal services would depend on whether the municipality passes a by-law covering them. The bill does not require every municipality to do so.
- Universities: A university could refuse designation because its consent would be required. Designation would bring it within the bill’s definition of a government agency.
- Private businesses and the general public: The bill does not directly require all private businesses to provide services in French. It does require covered agencies and institutions to ensure services provided on their behalf by third parties follow the Act.
The supplied text does not include the current French Language Services Act, so it is not possible to verify which protections or duties would be new and which would carry over from current law.
Money#
No publicly available information on a total cost or cost estimate is included in the supplied material.
- The bill says money needed for its purposes must come from money appropriated by the Legislature. It gives no total amount.
- The Commissioner’s office would be funded from appropriations. The Commissioner could employ staff, subject to approval by the Board of Internal Economy.
- Government agencies and public institutions would have to appoint coordinators, and the Office de la francophonie would have to ensure they hire necessary personnel. The bill gives no staffing numbers or cost.
- The bill would require a language-rights support program and establish a promotion fund, but does not specify their budgets or the amount of financial support available.
What is unclear#
- Without the current French Language Services Act, the supplied material does not show how the bill’s rights and duties compare with existing protections.
- Which additional organizations would be covered depends partly on regulations designating them. Regulations could also exempt services and set rules for active offers, plans and bilingual signs.
- The bill does not define how an agency should show that it has taken “reasonable” steps and made reasonable proposals for an exemption.
- The bill requires plans and staffing, but does not set staffing levels or budgets. The scale and cost of implementation are unknown.
- The bill gives the Commissioner discretion over whether to act on complaints and lets the Commissioner set investigation procedures. It does not specify what remedy would follow a Commissioner’s findings; court appeals are provided for.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make French services easier to find and use by requiring active offers, bilingual public communications and service plans.
- A right to require a bilingual court proceeding could help French-speaking parties take part without relying on an interpreter for the proceeding itself.
- Coordinators, a Commissioner and an Advisory Council could give government bodies named roles in planning, monitoring and improving French-language services.
- Municipal choice and a university’s required consent would allow local governments and universities to decide whether to take on the bill’s bilingual-service duties.
Case against#
- The bill would create broad service, planning and staffing duties, but does not state their full cost or how much funding would be available.
- Regulations could exempt services or limit which organizations are designated. Until those rules are known, the reach of the service duties is uncertain.
- The court requirements, including bilingual proceedings and some bilingual prosecutions, could require staff and resources that the bill does not quantify.
- The Commissioner’s investigations are discretionary, and the bill leaves investigation procedures to the Commissioner. People may not know in advance what action a complaint will lead to.