Timeline of Official Languages Policy in Canada - Official Languages Policy and Legislation Relating To The Province of Canada (1840-1867) and The Dom

Official Languages Policy and Legislation Relating To The Province of Canada (1840-1867) and The Dom

• 1840: The Act of Union is adopted. Section 41 of the Act bans the French language from Parliament and Courts of the new united Province of Canada.
• 1848: Article 41 of the Act of Union is amended. In a return to the situation that had existed from 1792 to 1837 in Lower Canada, it is once again legal to use the French language in the Parliament and in the Courts.
• 1857: Section 15 of the Act respecting the Codification of the Laws of Lower Canada relative to Civil Matters and Procedure requires that the Civil Code of Lower Canada be printed only in bilingual form, with English and French displayed on the same page: “he two texts, when printed, shall stand side by side.” Side-by-side publication is a first step towards the adoption of the "Equal Authenticity Rule" for interpreting bilingual statutes.
• 1867: Section 133 of the British North America Act, 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act, 1867) decrees that "The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages ", and also mandates the use of both French and English for parliamentary debates, parliamentary publications, and federal court cases.
• 1935: R. v. DuBois: The Supreme Court of Canada applies the rule of judicial interpretation that will come to be known as the “Equal Authenticity Rule” to Acts of Parliament. This rule of interpretation holds that section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires courts to treat “both versions of statutes equally valid and authoritative interpretations of the law,” even if the statute in question was clearly drafted in one language and translated into the other, and even if the two versions of the law are incompatible. This rule had been applied to Quebec legislation since 1891, as a consequence of the court’s ruling in CPR v. Robinson.
• 1959: The Conservative government of John Diefenbaker introduces simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons. Prior to this, the right to use English or French in Parliament had been guaranteed, but unilingual MPs had been unable to understand each other's speeches.
• 1962: From this date, family allowance cheques are mailed in bilingual form, nationwide.
• 1963: Bilingualism in its more extensive modern form begins with the establishment of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
• 1963: The Liberal government of Lester Pearson establishes an interdepartmental committee of senior public servants to report regarding measures to promote bilingualism in the Public Service.
• 1964: The first language school for Public Servants opens.
• 1964: A private member's bill, initiated by Liberal backbencher Jean Chrétien, gives Canada's state-owned airline, Trans-Canada Air Lines, the new bilingual name "Air Canada," starting a trend of giving bilingual names to federal institutions which formerly had borne English-only names.
• 1968: From this date forward, statutes of Canada are printed with the English and French texts of the law side by side, rather than in separate volumes. This "allows for a first-hand comparison of both texts...." Side-by-side publication is an indication of the internalization, within the Canadian parliament, of the "Equal Authenticity Rule".
• 1969: The Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau enacts the Official Languages Act.
• 1970: The Secretary of State (the future Department of Canadian Heritage) establishes the Official Languages in Education Program to supervise financial transfers from Ottawa to the provinces and territories to promote two objectives: First, to promote second-language training in public schools across Canada with the goal of promoting an increase in personal bilingualism; and second, to financially promote education for the linguistic minority of the province (English in Quebec, French elsewhere).
• 1973: Parliament passes a Resolution on Official Languages in the Public Service confirming the right of civil servants to work in the official language of their choice.
• 1974: Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick: The Supreme Court of Canada rejects the argument of Moncton mayor Leonard Jones that the Official Languages Act is unconstitutional because it deals with subject matter outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.
• 1974: The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act requires the use of both French and English on all consumer packaging across the country; bilingual packaging remains one of the most visible aspects of bilingualism for the Canadian general public resulting in this aspect of bilingualism sometimes being termed "cereal box bilingualism".
• 1978: The Criminal Code is amended to give accused persons the right to be heard by a judge (a judge and jury, in the event of a jury trial) who speaks the official language of the accused.
• 1986: Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the right of the accused, under section 19 of the Charter of Rights, to use English or French in a trial, does not guarantee the right to be heard by a judge who speaks the defendant’s preferred language. This decision is reversed in 1999, in R. v. Beaulac.
• 1988: A second version of the Official Languages Act is introduced, taking into account the new requirements of the Charter of Rights.
• 1988: The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney enacts the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which allows for the state-owned airline to be privatized, but which also provides that, even as a private company, Air Canada will be required to operate in conformity with the Official Languages Act, precisely as it had done when it was government-owned. In 2003, Air Canada will restructure, spinning off a number of independent companies, including Jazz Airlines. Because these new entities are not part of Air Canada, they are no longer subject to the terms of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, and hence cease to be obligated to adhere to the practices of the Official Languages Act.
• 1989: Saulnier v. The Queen: A Nova Scotia county court rules that under section 20 of the Charter of Rights, a federal government department cannot simply presume that there is no need for French –language services, particularly where French-speakers might face penalties for failing to comply with laws of which they could not be fully aware unless these had been explained to them in their own language.
• 1993: Professional Institute of the Public Service v. the Queen: The Federal Court of Canada rules that sections 32 and 33 of the Official Languages Act impose a positive burden upon the federal government not only to react or respond to pressures for more or better bilingual services, but to initiate programmes to those serves where there is a perceived need for them.
• 1993: R. v. Haché: The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rules that the government is not under a positive obligation to inform people that they have a right to services in their own language.
• 1999: R. v. Beaulac: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that section 530 of the Criminal Code, which allows for the accused to be heard in court in his or her preferred official language, be given a generous, purposive interpretation.
• 2002: Quigley v. Canada (House of Commons) : The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rules that the House of Commons is obliged to ensure that, in any part of the country where its proceedings are broadcast in one language, they must also be broadcast in the other official language.
• 2003: The Liberal government of Jean Chrétien tables its Action Plan for Official Languages. The Action Plan includes a statement of intention to raise the ratio of bilingual young Canadians (aged 15–19) from 24% in 2001 to 50% in 2013.
• 2005: An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French) (better known at the time of its passage as "Bill S-3") is enacted, making Part VII of the Official Languages Act justiciable.
• 2006: Desrochers v. Canada (Industry): The Federal Court of Appeal rules that section 25 of the Official Languages Act requires third parties providing services to the public on behalf of a federal department "to provide these services in both official languages if ... the federal institution or federal government were themselves subject to this obligation." This decision is a virtual twin to the Supreme Court of Canada's 2008 ruling, regarding services provided on behalf of a provincial government, in Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Canada.
• 2008: The Conservative government of Stephen Harper amends the Criminal Code to require that all accused persons are advised of their right to have the proceedings conducted in the official language of their choice.
• 2008: The Conservative government of Stephen Harper tables its Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, a five-year plan to spend $1.1 billion to promote the two official languages.