Bill C-91 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Indigenous Languages Act
An Act respecting Indigenous languages
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 5, 2019
- Debated in principleFeb. 20, 2019
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 9, 2019
- Passed the second chamberJune 13, 2019
- Became lawJune 20, 2019
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament at [email protected]. On 5 February 2019, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism introduced Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages (Indigenous Languages Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-91 provides, among other things, that (a) the Government of Canada recognizes that the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include rights related to Indigenous languages; (b) the Minister of Canadian Heritage may enter into different types of agreements or arrangements in respect of Indigenous languages with Indigenous governments or other Indigenous governing bodies or Indigenous organizations, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous groups, communities and peoples; and (c) federal institutions may cause documents to be translated into an Indigenous language or p…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
29% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,476 words introduced, 6,399 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent broadened
The bill added references to territorial governments and Indigenous sign languages while creating new bodies and reviews. It also updated funding talks, cooperation rules and the preamble to cover the Sixties Scoop.
- New clause on access to services in Indigenous languages added.
After: “10.1 Access to services in Indigenous languages”
- Preamble now lists the Sixties Scoop among harms to languages.
Before: “forced relocation and residential schools”
After: “forced relocation, the Sixties Scoop and residential schools”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The Act relies heavily on subjective phrases such as 'where appropriate', 'in the opinion of', and 'culturally appropriate' that leave key decisions open to argument. Defined terms exist for institutions and roles, but operative powers are granted in broad, discretionary language.
Open to argument
“where appropriate, consult and coordinate”
Uses a subjective standard that invites debate over when consultation is required.“any financial or other developments that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, are likely to have a material effect”
Depends on the official’s personal judgment and an undefined 'material effect' test.“mediation or other culturally appropriate services”
Undefined term 'culturally appropriate' creates uncertainty about what services qualify.“employees that are necessary to carry out the activities”
Leaves the determination of necessity and duties entirely to the Office.
Clear-cut
“appropriate Minister has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act”
Cross-reference supplies an objective, external definition.“Indigenous peoples has the meaning assigned by the definition aboriginal peoples of Canada in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982”
Anchors the term to a fixed constitutional provision.
Discretion. Ministers may enter agreements 'to further the purposes of this Act' and the Office decides hiring, dispute-resolution methods, and what counts as material developments, all subject to later regulations and rules.
Challenging the law itself. Broad discretion and undefined subjective standards such as 'appropriate' and 'likely to' engage vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching obligations could readily dispute whether services were 'culturally appropriate' or whether developments were 'likely to have a material effect'.
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?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.