Bill C-419 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Language Skills Act
An Act respecting language skills
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 1, 2012
- Debated in principleFeb. 27, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 5, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 25, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
86% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (573 words introduced, 313 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core requirement that certain officers must be proficient in both official languages at appointment was retained, but the preamble, the power to add offices by regulation, and the interim appointment rule were all dropped. Wording of the language test was also simplified by removing the explicit reference to understanding without an interpreter.
- Language proficiency test was rephrased and shortened.
Before: “be able to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in both official languages”
After: “be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages”
- Power for Governor in Council to add offices by regulation was deleted.
Before: “The Governor in Council may, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2.”
- Rule requiring interim appointees to meet the language standard was deleted.
Before: “In the event of the absence or incapacity of the incumbent of any of the offices listed in section 2 or vacancy in any of these offices, the person appointed in the interim must meet the requirements set out in section 2.”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act lists ten specific offices by name and statutory subsection and imposes a single mandatory requirement at the moment of appointment. No undefined terms, subjective standards, or discretionary powers appear in the operative text.
Discretion. The text grants no authority to ministers, officials, or regulations to add offices, modify the language requirement, or create exemptions.
Challenging the law itself. The narrow, enumerated list and objective timing requirement leave little scope for successful vagueness or overbreadth claims under the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Compliance turns on a factual determination of language ability at one defined moment, which can be resolved by evidence without interpretive debate.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.