Skip to main content
Back to Bills
FederalDid not become law (session ended)40th Parliament, 3rd Session

Bill S-220 explained in plain English

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public)

Federal Parliament bill summary, status, timeline, sponsor, votes, and official sources.

At a glance

Jurisdiction
Federal Parliament
Legislature / Parliament
Parliament of Canada
Session
40th Parliament, 3rd Session
Bill number
Bill S-220
Full title
An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public)
Current status
Did not become law (session ended)
Latest event
At second reading in the Senate
Last updated
Mar 24, 2011

Official Parliament of Canada snapshot for 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. MP vote breakdowns appear when the House of Commons publishes a recorded division export for that bill. Senate and House stage details include official debate/sitting links when LEGISinfo publishes them.

Chamber
Parliament of Canada
Current Stage
At second reading in the Senate
Latest Activity
Mar 24, 2011
Plain-language explanation
In plain English (our explanation)

Our plain-language take, written for civic education.

Source: By PoliticalData.ca

AI-assisted, reviewed before publishing
Short Version

Bill S-220 amends the Official Languages Act to expand when federal institutions and designated transportation carriers must provide bilingual communications and services, introduce a requirement for equal quality services in both official languages, and change how "significant demand" for language services is determined.

What It Means

Bill S-220 proposes changes to how the Official Languages Act requires the federal government and certain transportation companies to communicate with Canadians in English and French. **Main changes:** The bill expands where bilingual services must be offered. Currently, federal institutions must provide services in both languages at their main office and places with "significant demand." This bill adds requirements for bilingual services at: railway stations and airports serving major cities (census metropolitan areas), railway stations and airports serving national or provincial/territorial capitals, ferry terminals serving at least 100,000 people per year, and other transportation facilities designated by regulation. The bill introduces a new concept: "equal quality" of communications and services in both languages. Federal institutions and designated carriers must take reasonable measures to ensure that services offered in English are of the same quality as services in French, and vice versa. The bill changes how "significant demand" is determined. Instead of just looking at the number of people who speak a language, decision-makers must also consider: whether the official language minority lives in a specific geographic area, whether the minority faces linguistic assimilation (loss of the language), and the institutional vitality of the minority community. The bill extends bilingual requirements to designated transportation carriers (rail, maritime, and air companies) that are designated by regulation. These carriers must follow many of the same bilingual communication and service rules as federal institutions. The bill adds new rules about when federal institutions can provide services through contractors. If a contractor provides services on behalf of a federal institution, those services must be available in both languages in the same circumstances where the institution itself would be required to provide bilingual services. The bill requires federal institutions and carriers to actively tell the public about bilingual services through signs, notices, and other communications. The bill requires the Treasury Board President to review bilingual service regulations every 10 years (following each census) to ensure they still make sense. The bill adds new rules for how regulations that create exceptions to bilingual requirements must be made. Proposed regulations must be tabled in Parliament at least 30 days before they are published, published in regional media in both languages at least 30 days before they take effect, and the public must have a chance to comment on them. **Key definitions:** - "Designated carrier" means transportation companies (rail, maritime, or air) that are designated by regulation. - "Metropolitan area" means areas that Statistics Canada identifies as census metropolitan areas in its most recent census. - "Provincial or territorial institution" includes provincial and territorial courts, governments, agencies, and Crown corporations.

What This Bill Does
  • Expands bilingual communication and service requirements to designated transportation carriers (rail, maritime, and air companies) alongside federal institutions
  • Introduces a requirement that federal institutions and designated carriers must ensure communications and services are of 'equal quality' in both official languages
  • Modifies how 'significant demand' for language services is determined by considering: the geographic location of official language minorities, whether minorities face linguistic assimilation, and institutional vitality of minority communities
  • Specifies specific locations where bilingual services are mandatory: railway stations and airports serving census metropolitan areas, stations and airports serving national or provincial/territorial capitals, ferry terminals serving at least 100,000 people annually, and other designated transport facilities
  • Extends bilingual requirements to services provided by contractors when those services are provided on behalf of federal institutions or designated carriers
  • Requires federal institutions and designated carriers to actively inform the public that bilingual services are available through signs, notices, communications, and other information materials
  • Requires bilingual signs at offices and facilities of federal institutions and designated carriers
  • Mandates that federal institutions and designated carriers consult with English and French linguistic minority communities on the quality of services offered in each official language
  • Requires a decennial review of bilingual service regulations following each census to assess whether they remain appropriate
  • Establishes new consultation requirements before Parliament for proposed regulations that create exceptions to or relieve federal institutions and designated carriers from bilingual service obligations
  • Requires proposed regulations to be published in regional media in both languages at least 30 days before they take effect, with public opportunity to comment
Who Is Affected
  • Members of the public in Canada and abroad who communicate with federal institutions or designated transportation carriers
  • Federal institutions and their offices or facilities across Canada and internationally
  • Rail, maritime, and air transportation companies designated by regulation as 'designated carriers'
  • English-speaking and French-speaking linguistic minority populations in specific geographic regions
  • Contractors and third parties who provide services on behalf of federal institutions or designated carriers
  • The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (specifically required to provide bilingual services on Trans-Canada Highway portions served by its detachments)
  • Statistics Canada (referenced for identifying census metropolitan areas)
Rights, Duties, Or Obligations
  • Any member of the public has the right to communicate with and receive available services from federal institutions and designated carriers in either official language in accordance with Part IV of the Act
  • Federal institutions must ensure their head or central office provides bilingual communication and services to all members of the public
  • Federal institutions must provide bilingual services at other offices or facilities located: within the National Capital Region, in regions where provincial or territorial institutions are required by law or regulation to provide bilingual services, or where there is significant demand
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police must provide bilingual communication and services on portions of the Trans-Canada Highway served by their detachments
  • Designated carriers must ensure their head or central office provides bilingual services and must do so at other locations where there is significant demand
  • Federal institutions and designated carriers must provide bilingual services at specific mandatory locations: railway stations and airports serving census metropolitan areas, stations and airports serving national or provincial/territorial capitals, ferry terminals serving at least 100,000 people annually, and other designated transport facilities
  • Federal institutions and designated carriers must ensure services provided by contractors are available in both official languages where applicable
  • Federal institutions and designated carriers must ensure equal quality of communications and services in both official languages
  • Federal institutions and designated carriers must take measures to inform the public that services are available in both languages, including through signs, notices, information on services, and initiating communication with the public
  • Bilingual signs at offices and facilities must include both official languages or be placed together with equal prominence in the other language
  • Federal institutions and designated carriers must use communication media that effectively reach members of the public in the official language of their choice
  • Federal institutions and designated carriers must consult with English and French linguistic minority communities on the quality of communications and services offered in each official language
  • The President of the Treasury Board (or designated minister) must undertake a review of regulations within 60 days following each decennial census and complete it within one year
Important Dates
  • The Act comes into force 180 days after receiving royal assent
  • Decennial reviews of regulations must be undertaken within 60 days following each decennial census and must be completed within one year from when the review was undertaken
Financial Or Tax Impacts
  • The bill text does not specify financial costs, budget allocations, or tax impacts
Enforcement Or Penalties
  • The bill text does not specify enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or consequences for non-compliance with the new bilingual service requirements
Uncertainties Or Limits
  • The bill defines 'designated carrier' as transportation companies 'designated by regulation' but does not specify which companies will be designated; this will be determined later by the Governor in Council
  • The bill requires 'reasonable measures' to ensure equal quality services but does not define what constitutes reasonable measures or how compliance will be assessed
  • The bill refers to 'significant demand' as a criterion but does not provide a specific numerical threshold; specific circumstances defining significant demand are to be prescribed by regulation
  • How 'institutional vitality' of linguistic minority communities will be measured or assessed is not specified in the bill text
  • The bill does not specify how consultation with linguistic minority communities on service quality will be conducted; this is to be determined by regulation
  • The bill does not specify which transportation services and 'related services' will be covered; this will be determined by regulation
  • The bill does not specify which additional railway stations, airports, ferry terminals, public ports, and port facilities will be designated; this will be determined by regulation
  • The bill text does not indicate what enforcement mechanisms, compliance monitoring, or penalties exist for non-compliance
  • The bill does not specify the cost of implementing these new requirements or any funding mechanisms
  • The current status and future passage of this bill is unclear; it was at second reading in the Senate as of the provided information
Laws Or Regulations Affected
Official Languages Act (1985, c. 31, 4th Supp.)
amends

Expands the scope of federal bilingual communication and service obligations, introduces equal quality requirement, changes how significant demand is determined, extends obligations to designated transportation carriers, adds decennial review requirement, and creates new consultation procedures for regulations creating exceptions

Source: Sections 1-10; specifically amending subsections 3(1), sections 21-25, 28-30, 32, and adding new section 32.1 and amendments to section 33

Generated using AI from official bill text. Not legal advice. It is written by PoliticalData.ca for civic education, automatically checked and spot-reviewed before publishing.

Official text

Parliamentary Process

Step 1
First reading
Jun 9, 2010
Completed

Bill S-220, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, was introduced and received its first reading in the Senate on June 9, 2010.

Introduction and first reading, Jun 9, 2010
End of stage activity, Jun 9, 2010
Chamber sittings
Introduction and first reading - Jun 9, 2010

Bill S-220, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, was introduced and received first reading in the Senate on June 9, 2010.

Step 2
Second reading
Mar 24, 2011
Not completed

Bill S-220, concerning amendments to the Official Languages Act, was undergoing debate at its second reading stage in the Senate, with multiple sittings dedicated to this process.

Chamber sittings
Debate at second reading - Jun 15, 2010

During a Senate sitting on June 15, 2010, Bill S-220, aiming to amend the Official Languages Act regarding public communications and services, began its second reading debate, which was subsequently adjourned.

Debate at second reading - Oct 7, 2010

The Senate paused the debate on Bill S-220, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, during its second reading stage.

Debate at second reading - Oct 21, 2010

During the Senate's second reading debate on Bill S-220, Senator Losier-Cool supported its amendments to the Official Languages Act concerning equal quality of services in both official languages, after which the debate was adjourned.

During the Senate's second reading debate on Bill S-220, senators discussed proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act aimed at ensuring equal quality of communications and services in French and English, with particular focus on designated carriers, the RCMP, and the consultation of minority language communities.

Debate at second reading - Nov 4, 2010

On November 4, 2010, the Senate heard statements, tabled reports, addressed questions on various topics including linguistic duality, and continued debate on Bill S-220 concerning amendments to the Official Languages Act.

During the Senate's second reading debate on Bill S-220, Senator Tardif argued for modernizing the Official Languages Act to account for demographic shifts and introduced proposed amendments regarding service criteria, while Senator Mercer expressed concern about the impact of removing the long-form census on minority language services.

Debate at second reading - Nov 23, 2010

The Senate sitting on November 23, 2010, included tributes to a retiring senator, committee business, question period, and the continuation of debates on bills concerning official languages and conflict of interest, as well as several inquiries.

Debate at second reading - Dec 7, 2010

On December 7, 2010, the Senate paid tribute to former Senator Norman K. Atkins, tabled various reports, and continued debates on multiple bills, including those concerning official languages, consumer product safety, and controlled drugs.

Debate at second reading - Dec 14, 2010

During a Senate sitting on December 14, 2010, debate continued on Bill S-220, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, with senators discussing its principles and the possibility of referring it to committee, while also addressing other legislative business and procedural matters.

Debate at second reading - Feb 16, 2011

The Senate continued debate on Bill S-220 concerning official languages, addressed various questions on government policy and appointments, and authorized committee studies.

Debate at second reading - Mar 24, 2011

During a Senate sitting on March 24, 2011, debate on Bill S-220, concerning amendments to the Official Languages Act, continued with senators raising concerns about its broad impact and costs, before the debate was adjourned.

Step 3
Third reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

We don't have a plain-language summary for Third reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.

Step 1
First reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

We don't have a plain-language summary for First reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.

Step 2
Second reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

We don't have a plain-language summary for Second reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.

Step 3
Consideration in committee
Not reached yet
Not reached

We don't have a plain-language summary for Consideration in committee yet. The official source linked below is the full record.

Step 4
Report stage
Not reached yet
Not reached

We don't have a plain-language summary for Report stage yet. The official source linked below is the full record.

Step 5
Third reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

We don't have a plain-language summary for Third reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.

Debate and sitting links point to official parliamentary sources when LEGISinfo publishes them. Any plain-language discussion summaries should be generated from those official texts and reviewed before public display.

Vote Summary

No published recorded division

This bill is still active. We only show vote counts after the legislature publishes a recorded division.

Sponsor
Maria Chaput
Senator | Details not listed in current Senate roster
Jurisdiction
Federal Parliament

No published representative vote breakdown

This bill is still moving through the process. When a recorded division is published, representative positions can be listed here.

Official sources

Status, sponsor, votes, and timeline on this page are drawn from these official legislative sources and public records. Each summary above is attributed to its own source.

How this data is sourced