Summary#
Bill 36, the Franco-Ontarian Community Act, 2021, would replace Ontario’s French Language Services Act and amend several other Acts. Its stated goal is to protect French and support the preservation, growth and vitality of 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, make their public signs and written communications bilingual, and ensure third-party services provided on their behalf comply. An agency could claim an exemption only after taking all reasonable steps and making reasonable proposals, which it must describe in its French-language services plan.
- The bill would set French and English as official languages of Ontario courts and tribunals. A party who speaks French could require a bilingual proceeding, with rules about who hears it and how testimony and decisions are handled.
- Ministries, agencies and public institutions would have to prepare French-language services plans within 365 days, collect data about community needs and consult the Franco-Ontarian community.
- The bill would create or continue an Office of the Franco-Ontarian Community, an Advisory Council and a French Language Services Commissioner who is an officer of the Assembly. It would also require a French Language Services Coordinator in each government agency and public institution.
- Municipalities could choose to provide services in French by by-law; Ottawa’s bilingual character would be recognized, and its existing bilingualism by-law would continue under the bill.
- A university could be designated as a government agency only with its consent. The bill would also establish a language rights support program and a special account called the Fund for the Promotion of the Franco-Ontarian Community. Money for the Act would come from amounts appropriated by the Legislature.
What it means for you#
- People using government services: You would have a right to communicate with and receive services from covered agencies and public institutions in French or English. The bill also requires active offers, not just service on request. Some services could be exempt if the agency meets the bill’s conditions.
- People involved in court or tribunal proceedings: You could use French or English. If you speak French, you could require a bilingual proceeding under the bill’s rules. The text also says hearings are in English unless another requirement applies, so the detailed rules and regulations would matter.
- Municipal residents: French services would be required under this bill only where a municipality chooses to pass a by-law. Reducing those services would require public notice and consideration of comments.
- Universities and other designated organizations: Some universities, colleges, non-profits and service providers could be designated as government agencies by regulation. University designation requires the university’s consent. Existing French-language service agency designations would carry over.
- Government bodies and institutions: They would have to make plans, consult, appoint coordinators and meet service requirements. The Commissioner could investigate compliance and bring legal proceedings; a complainant could appeal certain decisions to the Superior Court.
Money#
The bill requires appropriations for its purposes, but the available material gives no cost estimate.
- Government agencies and public institutions must appoint coordinators. The Office must ensure they hire necessary personnel, including by notifying Treasury Board, but the bill gives no staffing numbers or cost.
- The Commissioner’s office may hire staff and acquire premises and supplies; its annual funding estimates would be reviewed by the Board of Internal Economy.
- A regulation must establish the language rights support program, with financial support terms set by regulation. The bill also creates a special account, but does not set its funding amount or allocation.
What is unclear#
- The current French Language Services Act was not supplied, so the existing rights, duties and protections cannot be checked against this proposed replacement.
- Many details depend on future regulations, including which organizations and services are covered, court procedures, exemptions, signage rules and the support program’s eligibility and funding.
- The bill does not set the amount of money for the Fund or explain how it would be distributed.
- It does not specify how much time agencies would have to implement their plans beyond the initial 365-day deadline, or how plan approval and later monitoring would work in practice.
- “Prescribed criteria” for membership in the Franco-Ontarian community are not set out in the bill.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it would turn a broad commitment to French services into explicit duties, including active offers, bilingual signs and written communications, and services delivered by third parties.
- It would give French-speaking parties a stated right to require bilingual court proceedings and create a Commissioner with investigation and legal powers.
- Required plans, data collection and consultation could help agencies identify service needs and explain how they intend to meet them.
- The bill recognizes that some organizations receiving public money may provide public services and allows them to be covered by regulation.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill’s reach depends on regulations and exemptions. Until those are set, it is unclear which services and organizations would be covered.
- The bill creates staffing and service duties without estimating their costs or setting specific staffing levels.
- The Commissioner may decline or stop complaint investigations at their discretion, and the bill does not require every complaint to be investigated.
- The bill sets extensive language rights and duties but leaves many operating details to future rules, making the practical scope hard to judge from the bill alone.