An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

How it changed on the way

20% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (20,302 words introduced, 24,571 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill added new preambular commitments on remedying French's demographic decline and Quebec's language regime while shifting coordination leadership from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the President of the Treasury Board. Minor wording updates also appeared in the government commitments on education and immigration estimates.

• Leadership for Act implementation moved from Minister of Canadian Heritage to President of the Treasury Board.

  Before: “Government-wide Coordination Minister of Canadian Heritage 2.1 (1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for exercising leadership within the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of this Act.”

  After: “Government-wide Coordination President of the Treasury Board 2.1 (1) The President of the Treasury Board is responsible for exercising leadership within the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of this Act.”

• New preambular clauses added on demographic weight and Quebec's Charter.

  After: “AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of remedying the decline in the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities, including by restoring and increasing their demographic weight;”

• Commitment wording on education and estimates revised and expanded.

  Before: “(e) provide for Government of Canada commitments to (i) protect and promote French, (ii) contribute to an estimate of the number of children whose parents are rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , (iii) advance opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education, and (iv) advance the use of English and French in the conduct of Canada's external affairs;”

  After: “(e) provide for Government of Canada commitments to (i) protect and promote French, (ii) estimate the number of children whose parents are rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , (iii) advance formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education, and (iv) advance the use of English and French in the conduct of Canada's external affairs;”

• New duties added for arbitral awards and trade unions in language-of-work section.

  After: “9.1 Duty — arbitral awards 9.2 Rights of trade unions”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy

The bill mixes a few numeric and defined terms with many subjective phrases that leave meaning open to argument. Most operative duties turn on what officials consider appropriate, necessary or reasonable rather than fixed rules.

Open to argument

• “by any other means that that Minister considers appropriate”

  Subjective ministerial judgment replaces an objective standard for public access.

• “if it is appropriate in order to create a work environment”

  Whether a measure is 'appropriate' invites prolonged debate over workplace language duties.

• “the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe”

  Reasonable grounds is a subjective threshold that must be litigated case by case.

• “take any action that the Commissioner considers appropriate to rectify”

  The Commissioner’s remedial power is defined by personal opinion rather than listed steps.

Clear-cut

• “namely, 6.1% of the population outside Quebec”

  Restoration target is fixed to a specific census figure.

• “within 30 business days after the day on which the notice of violation is served”

  Time limit is expressed in a defined number of business days.

Discretion. Ministers, the Commissioner and the Treasury Board retain wide discretion to decide what is appropriate, necessary or reasonable and to set further rules by regulation.

Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as 'appropriate' and 'reasonable grounds' could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under Charter s. 7 or s. 2(b) language rights.

Disputing a charge under it. A designated body can readily dispute whether the Commissioner’s subjective belief met the 'reasonable grounds' or 'appropriate' tests.

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.