Summary#
Bill 137, the Franco-Ontarian Community Act, 2019, would repeal and replace Ontario’s French Language Services Act and amend several other Acts. Its stated goal is to protect and strengthen French and the Franco-Ontarian community; that goal is not a guaranteed result.
- Government agencies and public institutions would have to actively offer services in French and English, use bilingual public signs and posters, and provide public-facing written communications in both languages. They would also have to ensure services delivered on their behalf by third parties meet the Act’s requirements.
- The bill would set French and English as the official languages of Ontario courts and tribunals. A party who speaks French could require a bilingual proceeding, with decision-makers who understand both languages; certain court and tribunal decisions would have to be published in both languages.
- The Legislature’s proceedings could be in either language, and bills, Acts and regulations would have to be made in both, with both versions equally authoritative.
- Each government agency and public institution would have to consult the Franco-Ontarian community, collect information about its needs, and submit a two-to-five-year French-language services plan for ministerial approval.
- Municipalities could choose by by-law to provide municipal services in both languages. Universities could be designated as government agencies only with their consent.
- The bill would establish an Advisory Council, a French Language Services Commissioner and the Commissioner’s office, and a language-rights support program and promotion fund. The Commissioner could investigate, report and take part in legal proceedings; people who complain could appeal to court.
What it means for you#
- People using government or public institution services: You would have a right to communicate and receive services in French or English, subject to the bill’s rules and possible exemptions. French services would have to be actively offered, not merely available on request. An agency could be exempt if it had taken all reasonable steps and made all reasonable proposals to comply, and explained these in its plan.
- People involved in court or tribunal cases: You could use French or English. A French-speaking party could require a bilingual proceeding. The bill also sets conditions for those proceedings, including that the judge or tribunal members understand French without an interpreter. Hearings would otherwise be conducted in English unless another law or requirement says otherwise.
- Municipal residents: French-language municipal services would depend on whether the municipality adopts a by-law. If it later reduced those services, it would have to give 45 days’ notice and consider public and Commissioner comments.
- Universities and other organizations: A university could be designated only with its consent. Regulations could also designate colleges and certain publicly funded or publicly serving organizations. A designation could cover only particular services.
- Government agencies and public institutions: They would need plans, community consultation and French Language Services Coordinators. The Office of the Franco-Ontarian Community would have to ensure they hire the personnel needed to meet their obligations.
- The public: The bill does not itself require every municipality or university to provide all services in French. Nor does it set out a general application or approval process for people seeking services.
Money#
The bill requires funding from money appropriated by the Legislature, but no cost estimate is provided.
- It provides for a Commissioner’s office, including staff, premises and supplies, and says the Legislature must appropriate money for its administration.
- It requires a language-rights support program to be established by regulation within 180 days of Royal Assent. The regulation would set its financial-assistance terms and process.
- It establishes a special account for a promotion fund, but does not state how much money would go into it.
- The bill requires coordinators and service plans across government agencies and public institutions, but gives no staffing numbers or cost estimate.
What is unclear#
- The French Language Services Act being repealed was not supplied, so the bill’s changes compared with the law then in force could not be verified.
- The bill leaves key details to regulations, including which organizations are designated, which court and tribunal proceedings are covered, and how the support program and fund operate.
- It does not set out the full process or timetable for complaints and investigations, beyond the Commissioner’s powers and court appeal rules.
- It allows exemptions and partial designations, but the bill does not identify which services or organizations would receive them.
- The bill does not state the total cost, the amounts to be appropriated, or how quickly agencies would be able to meet the new requirements.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make French services easier to find and use by requiring active offers, bilingual communications and services from third parties acting for covered agencies.
- Requiring service plans based on community needs could give agencies a way to set priorities and show what they plan to provide.
- The Commissioner’s investigation, reporting and court-related powers could give people routes to challenge non-compliance.
- Bilingual proceedings and publication of certain decisions could improve access to the justice system for French speakers.
Case against#
- The bill sets broad duties but leaves many important coverage and implementation choices to future regulations, so the reach of the requirements would not be clear from the Act alone.
- Agencies and institutions would have to prepare plans, consult, appoint coordinators and hire needed personnel, but the bill provides no cost estimate or staffing plan.
- The Commissioner may decline or stop a complaint investigation, and the bill does not require an investigation in every case.
- Court language rights could be difficult to deliver consistently if the required bilingual judges, tribunal members or jurors are not available; the bill does not explain how that capacity would be built.