Bill 18 amends Manitoba’s Public Schools Act to permit a school board to authorize an Indigenous language — one recognized under The Aboriginal Languages Recognition Act or prescribed by regulation — to serve as the language of instruction in any school, subject to regulations. The bill also ensures French can be taught at any grade in those schools and requires English or French be taught as a subject in every class from Grade IV through XII.
It authorizes school boards to enter inter-board agreements to jointly provide instruction in Indigenous languages and changes the Languages of Instruction Advisory Committee’s composition to require at least two Indigenous members with expertise in teaching Indigenous languages.
This change creates an operational pathway for Indigenous-language immersion or instruction programs under local school-board authority while preserving provincial obligations to teach English or French as subjects in upper grades. For administrators and policy teams, the bill shifts significant implementation responsibility to boards and the department through regulations, raises immediate capacity questions about teacher supply and curriculum materials, and formalizes Indigenous expertise in advisory decision-making.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new subsection allowing school boards to authorize an Indigenous language recognized under provincial law (or prescribed by regulation) to be the language of instruction, subject to regulatory requirements. It also requires that in schools using an Indigenous language for instruction, French may be taught in any grade and either English or French be taught in every class Grades IV–XII.
Who It Affects
Public school divisions and school districts, school boards that may choose to authorize Indigenous-language instruction, teachers and credentialing bodies responsible for Indigenous-language programming, and provincial officials who draft and enforce the implementing regulations.
Why It Matters
By enabling Indigenous languages to be used as the medium of instruction, the bill creates a statutory route for language-revitalization programs in public schools and assigns implementation control largely to local boards and provincial regulations, which will determine practical reach and consistency.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 18 inserts a targeted but consequential change into the Public Schools Act: when a school board authorizes it and regulations are followed, an Indigenous language recognized under The Aboriginal Languages Recognition Act (or later prescribed) can become the language used to teach classes in a school. The provision is not an automatic grant; it conditions language-of-instruction status on board authorization and regulatory compliance, meaning the details of who can teach, what curriculum applies, and minimum standards are left to the regulations and board policies.
To preserve access to Canada’s official languages within these programs, the bill adds a specific subject requirement: in any school where an Indigenous language is the language of instruction, French can be taught as a subject in any grade, and every class from Grade IV through XII must include either English or French as a subject. That creates a predictable bilingual-competency overlay for older students while allowing earlier-grade immersion to proceed in an Indigenous language.The bill also enables school boards to contract with one another to jointly provide classes delivered in an Indigenous language, which is a practical concession to regions with thin enrollment or limited teacher supply.
Separately, the Languages of Instruction Advisory Committee will now have at least two Indigenous members with demonstrated expertise in teaching Indigenous languages — a change intended to ensure policy advice includes Indigenous pedagogical perspectives.Operationalizing these provisions will depend on regulations (content, certification, program approval, assessments, funding) and on boards’ decisions. The bill sets statutory permission and a narrow set of subject requirements, but it leaves the heavy lifting — teacher qualifications, curriculum adaptation, transportation for regional programs, and funding formulas — to subsequent regulatory and administrative action.
The act comes into force by proclamation, so the province can stage implementation timing through regulation and proclamations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill allows a school board to authorize an Indigenous language recognized under section 1 of The Aboriginal Languages Recognition Act, or prescribed by regulation, to be the language of instruction in any school, subject to regulations.
In schools using an Indigenous language as the language of instruction, the bill requires that either English or French be taught as a subject in every class in Grades IV–XII; French may be offered as a subject in any grade.
School boards may enter into agreements with other boards to jointly provide classes taught in an Indigenous language, enabling shared programs where local capacity is limited.
The Languages of Instruction Advisory Committee’s composition is amended to require at least two Indigenous members with expertise in teaching Indigenous languages.
The act does not take effect immediately; it comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation, placing timing and some implementation decisions under the executive branch and regulations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Permits Indigenous languages to be the language of instruction (board authorization + regulations)
This is the bill’s core policy change: it lets a school board authorize an Indigenous language recognized under the provincial Aboriginal Languages Recognition Act (or one prescribed by regulation) to be the language used to teach in any school within the division or district. The provision ties the change to compliance with regulations, which means the minister or department will set operational requirements (teacher qualifications, curriculum standards, assessment, program approval). Practically, the statute creates legal possibility but delegates substantive program rules to regulation.
Mandatory subject teaching of English or French in middle and high school
This section imposes a specific curricular constraint: in schools where an Indigenous language is used as the language of instruction, either English or French must be taught as a subject in every class in Grades IV–XII; French may also be taught at any grade. The requirement preserves access to official languages for older students but does not prescribe how much instructional time English/French must receive, leaving that detail to regulations or board policy. Compliance monitoring and assessment of language outcomes will fall to boards and the department.
Inter-board agreements to share Indigenous-language programming
The bill authorizes boards to contract with one another to jointly provide instruction in classes where the language of instruction is an Indigenous language. This is a practical mechanism to address teacher shortages and small student populations: boards can consolidate resources, share specialized teachers, or operate regional programs. The statutory authorization does not create funding entitlements — those financial and logistical arrangements remain for boards and the department to negotiate.
Adds Indigenous-language expertise to advisory committee
This amendment requires that at least two members of the Languages of Instruction Advisory Committee be Indigenous persons with expertise in teaching Indigenous languages. That changes the committee’s composition to ensure Indigenous pedagogical perspectives are formally represented in advice to the minister. The bill does not specify the committee’s size or additional selection criteria, so appointment procedures and the scope of the experts’ roles will be set by existing committee rules or regulations.
Commencement by proclamation
Rather than naming a fixed start date, the act comes into force on a day to be set by proclamation. That gives the government flexibility to delay implementation until regulations, funding, teacher training, or other supports are in place. It also concentrates implementation sequencing with the executive branch rather than creating an immediate statutory deadline for boards or the department.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Indigenous students and families seeking instruction in their heritage languages — the bill creates an on-ramp for immersion or instruction programs inside the public system that can support language maintenance and cultural transmission.
- Indigenous language teachers and community language experts — the statutory recognition and advisory-committee representation formalize demand for their pedagogical expertise and may expand employment opportunities and program partnerships.
- School boards and divisions interested in offering Indigenous-language programs — boards get explicit legal authority to create such programs and to contract with other boards to share resources.
- Indigenous communities and language-revitalization organizations — the change permits formal schooling to be a site for language revitalization and builds institutional partnerships that can support community-driven language work.
Who Bears the Cost
- School boards and divisions — they will carry upfront costs for program development, teacher recruitment and training, curriculum adaptation, potential transportation for regional programs, and administrative oversight.
- Provincial education authorities — the department must draft regulations, create approval processes, provide guidance, and likely allocate funding or supports; the act shifts implementation complexity to administrative capacity.
- Teacher-certification bodies and teacher supply pipelines — certified teachers with Indigenous-language fluency and appropriate pedagogical training will be in higher demand, potentially creating recruitment, credentialing, or bargaining pressures.
- Students in smaller or remote schools without program access — inequities may arise if some boards can implement programs while others cannot, creating uneven access across divisions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enabling local, community-rooted Indigenous-language instruction and the provincial government’s need to preserve consistent curriculum standards and measurable outcomes: the bill hands authority to boards and relies on regulations to protect standards, but resource limits, teacher supply, and regulatory ambiguity risk making the policy aspirational for some communities and practically achievable for others.
The statute creates a legal pathway for Indigenous-language instruction but defers many critical implementation details to regulations and board decisions. That delegation is efficient politically, but it concentrates the practical burden on the department and local boards: they must define teacher qualifications, program approval criteria, instructional time allocations for English/French subjects, assessment standards, and funding models.
Until those regulations are promulgated, boards cannot reliably predict costs or program timelines. The proclamation-based commencement gives the executive flexibility to stage implementation, but it also creates uncertainty for communities and educators planning programs.
Teacher supply and certification are immediate operational constraints. The bill does not create new certification rules or funding; jurisdictions with limited numbers of qualified Indigenous-language teachers will need to rely on alternative staffing models (e.g., community language instructors, itinerant teachers shared between boards) or invest in training.
The requirement that English or French be taught in every Grade IV–XII class preserves bilingual competency goals but leaves open how that requirement interacts with immersion methodologies and student learning outcomes. Finally, the bill refers to Indigenous languages “recognized under” another statute or “prescribed by regulation,” raising jurisdictional questions about which languages qualify and who decides when a language is added — those choices will shape program eligibility and could become contentious among communities and linguistic experts.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.