Summary#
Bill 20, La Francophonie Act, 2021, would repeal and replace Ontario’s French Language Services Act and amend several other Acts. Its stated goal is to protect French and Francophone cultures and promote the maintenance and development of La Francophonie in Ontario. The supplied material does not include the current French Language Services Act, so I could not verify how each provision compares with current law.
- The Legislative Assembly would have to conduct business in French and English, keep records in both languages, and pass bills in both languages. The Attorney General would have to arrange French translations of new regulations and recommend them for adoption.
- French and English would be official languages of courts and tribunals. People could use either language in proceedings; a French-speaking party could require a bilingual proceeding under the bill’s rules.
- Government agencies and public institutions would have to actively offer services in both languages, use bilingual public signs and written communications, and ensure third parties serving the public on their behalf follow the Act. They would also have to prepare French-language services plans.
- The bill would establish a French-language rights support program and a Fund for the Promotion of La Francophonie, but money for the Act would depend on appropriations by the Legislature.
- Municipalities could choose to provide municipal services in both languages. A university could be designated as a government agency only with its consent. Ottawa’s bilingual character would be recognized.
What it means for you#
- People using government services: You would have a right to communicate with and receive services from government agencies and public institutions in French or English, subject to the Act and any regulations. The duty to actively offer both languages would apply to covered organizations, but the bill allows regulations to designate some organizations or services and to exempt services.
- French speakers using courts or tribunals: You could use French in matters before them. A French-speaking party could require a bilingual proceeding, which has rules for the language abilities of decision-makers and, in some cases, jurors. The bill does not require every hearing to be bilingual.
- Municipal residents: French-language municipal service rights under this bill would depend on the municipality passing a by-law. If a municipality later proposed reducing those services, it would have to give notice and consider comments from the public and the Commissioner.
- Universities: A university could be covered only if it consents to designation. If designated, the Attorney General would have to translate its enabling statute and table it for adoption by the Legislature.
- Government agencies and public institutions: They would have to appoint French Language Services Coordinators and, within 365 days after Royal Assent, submit plans covering two to five years. Plans would require Ministerial approval and consultation with La Francophonie.
- Private businesses and taxpayers: The bill does not generally require private businesses to serve customers in French. The requirements could apply to a third party providing services on behalf of a covered agency or institution.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill requires coordinators, service plans and a language rights support program, and provides for staff and operating costs for the Commissioner’s office. It gives no cost estimate or staffing total.
- It creates a special account for the Fund for the Promotion of La Francophonie, but does not state how much money it would receive.
- The bill says money required for its purposes must come from money appropriated by the Legislature; it does not itself set an amount.
What is unclear#
- The bill leaves key implementation details to regulations, including which organizations and services would be covered or exempt, and rules for active offers, plans and bilingual proceedings.
- It does not set out how the support program would decide which legal cases receive funding; those terms and processes would be set by regulation.
- The supplied material does not state whether Bill 20 passed or is in force. No publicly available information.
- The supplied material does not include the current French Language Services Act, so the full change from existing law could not be checked.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make French services easier to find and use by requiring active offers, bilingual signs and plans from covered agencies and institutions.
- A possible argument for the court provisions is that people should not be disadvantaged for using French, with bilingual proceedings available when a party requires them.
- The Commissioner could investigate compliance, make recommendations and take part in legal proceedings; court appeals could lead to a remedy if an agency or institution failed to comply.
- The plans and consultation requirements could give agencies a structured way to identify Francophone needs and plan services.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill sets broad duties but leaves important coverage and exemption decisions to future regulations.
- It is unclear how much bilingual staffing and service changes would cost, or whether appropriations would be sufficient to carry them out.
- The bill does not provide detailed rules for how agencies must consult La Francophonie or how the Minister would judge whether a plan is satisfactory.
- A possible trade-off is that the bill creates substantial language rights and administrative duties, while some services may be exempt and municipal bilingual services remain optional.