Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 160, Number 10: Official Languages Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations

March 7, 2026

Statutory authority
Official Languages Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Canadian Heritage

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

For a number of years now, the Canadian public and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (OCOL) have noted persistent instances of non-compliance with the Official Languages Act (the Act or the OLA) and the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations (regulations under Part IV of the Act or Official Languages Regulations), particularly as regards services to the travelling public. As early as November 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages recommended that the Government of Canada amend the Act to empower the Commissioner of Official Languages (COL or the Commissioner) to impose administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) in cases of non-compliance. To address these issues and strengthen the COL’s capacity to intervene, amendments expanding the COL’s powers were made to the Act in June 2023. The changes included the introduction of an AMP regime covering a targeted category of entities serving the travelling public, the purpose of which was to promote respect for the rights and compliance with the obligations set out in Part IV of the Act. The regime, which will come into force by order in council, requires supporting regulations clarifying its operation.

Background

Federal official languages legislative framework

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, established in 1963, was a response to Francophone concerns about linguistic inequalities in the federal administration. The Commission’s recommendations led to the adoption of the first Official Languages Act in 1969, establishing English and French as official languages at the federal level and guaranteeing the right to communicate with federal institutions in the language of one’s choice. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 (the Charter) reaffirmed that English and French are the official languages of Canada and that Canadians have the right to communicate with federal institutions in the official language of their choice. This right, set out in section 20 of the Charter, applies where federal institutions provide services to the public, particularly if there is significant demand. Thus, the rights with respect to communications with and services to the public in Part IV of the Act and its regulations flow directly from the rights set out in the Charter. The 1988 reform of the Act extended these protections to better reflect the provisions of the Charter and to advance the use of the two official languages in the federal public service and in Canadian society.

In spring 2019, the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the COL identified a need to modernize the OLA.footnote 1 The COL recommended that his office be granted additional powers, including through the institution of an AMP regime that would apply to all federal institutions subject to the OLA. That same year, the Government held extensive consultations on modernizing the Act. In 2021, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages released a document entitled English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada, highlighting the need to reform the Act to bring it in line with today’s realities. The document articulated several guiding principles, including principle 5, which emphasized the Government of Canada leading by example. Principle 5 involved increasing the powers of the COL to ensure better compliance with the OLA on the part of federal institutions. The reform crystallized in 2023 with royal assent to An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which modernized the OLA by incorporating a recognition of the linguistic diversity of the provinces and territories; stronger protections for French, particularly in minority communities; and an expanded continuum of powers for the COL that now included the power to impose AMPs.

The COL’s new power — under sections 65.1 to 65.95 of the Act (not yet in force) — to impose AMPs on Crown corporations and entities designated by regulation is intended to promote compliance with the obligations under Part IV of the Act. Part IV imposes obligations on federal institutions in the area of communications with and services to the public. Federal institutions are required to provide services and communications in both official languages at their head or central office and at any of their other offices or facilities within the National Capital Region or in areas where there is significant public demand. These obligations also cover services to the travelling public, including services provided by third parties on behalf of a federal institution, and extend to institutions involved in health or public safety or with a national or international mandate. Communications, whether oral or written, must be available in both official languages, with active offer, bilingual signage and use of media conducive to effective communication in the language chosen by the public.

The Act provides for an AMP of up to $25,000, but this ceiling may be raised by regulation. In the event of a violation, a notice of violation is drawn up, specifying the facts, the provisions in question and the procedures for contesting or paying the penalty. If the penalty is neither paid nor contested within the time set out in the notice, the offender is deemed to have committed the violation and is liable for the penalty. The Official Languages Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (the proposed Regulations or Regulations) will clarify and flesh out certain aspects of this statute, as provided for in subsection 65.4(1). These details are discussed in the “Description” section of this document.

Linguistic profile of federal institutions providing services to the travelling public

The AMP regime will apply to certain entities operating in the transportation sector and providing services to the travelling public in the event that they breach the language obligations under Part IV of the Act. In September 2024, the Treasury Board Secretariat identified 568 points of service belonging to subject entities. Of these, 340, or 59%, are designated as bilingual. However, only 55% (248) of Air Canada’s points of service are bilingual, while the bilingual share of points of service exceeds 75% for other entities. It also bears mentioning that the bilingual share is lower for Air Canada’s domestic flights (61) than for its offices (65) and international flights (122). In contrast, only two VIA Rail routes, Jasper–Prince Rupert and Winnipeg–Churchill, are designated as unilingual English.

Table 1: Language obligations by number of service points
Nota: Data extracted by the Treasury Board Secretariat from the System for Official Languages Obligations in September 2024. This system enables institutions subject to the OLA and its regulations to regularly update the list of their offices that provide services to and communicate with the public.
Institution English English and French French only Total
Air Canada: total 206 248 0 454
Air Canada: domestic flights 72 61 0 133
Air Canada: international flights 75 122 0 197
Air Canada: offices 59 65 0 124
VIA Rail Canada Inc.: total 16 62 1 79
VIA Rail Canada Inc.: routes 2 13 0 15
VIA Rail Canada Inc.: offices 14 49 1 64
Airport authorities 5 22 0 27
Marine Atlantic Inc. 0 8 0 8
Total 227 340 1 568

Part IV complaints deemed admissible by the COL

In recent years, a significant proportion of complaints deemed admissible by the COL have involved communication with and services to the public (Part IV of the Act). The COL’s annual reports show that, for 2023–2024, 63% of complaints (533 out of 847) involved Part IV. In 2022–2023, 45% (810 complaints out of 1 788) involved Part IV. In 2021–2022, 63% (3 398 complaints out of 5 409) involved Part IV of the Act.

At the same time, there has been a steady increase in admissible complaints in the transportation sector, especially against airport authorities, Air Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. In 2015–2016, 103 complaints were filed. By 2022–2023, this figure had climbed to 437. As these data show, while the total number of complaints across all sectors has decreased, as shown by the preceding analysis, the share of complaints relating to Part IV of the Act remains high, signalling a persistent problem with communications and services to the public, particularly in the transportation sector.

Table 2: Number of admissible complaints involving institutions serving the travelling public — Five-year average (2018–2019 to 2022–2023)
Federal institution table 2 note a Annual average (2018–2019 to 2022–2023) 2022–2023
Airport authorities 108.4 77
Air Canada 110.2 table 2 note b 276
VIA Rail Canada Inc. 6.6 7
Canadian Air Transport Security Authority table 2 note c 36.8 77

Table 2 note(s)

Source: Relevant data extracted from Table 1 of COL’s 2022–2023 Annual Report.
Table 2 note a

Data not available for Marine Atlantic Inc.

Return to table 2 note a referrer

Table 2 note b

Excludes 2021–2022, as most of the 2 833 complaints received that year concerned the speech given in English by Air Canada’s CEO to the MontrĂ©al Chamber of Commerce, a breach different from the usual infractions committed by institutions serving the travelling public.

Return to table 2 note b referrer

Table 2 note c

Included for information purposes, as administrative monetary penalties will not apply to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Return to table 2 note c referrer

Objective

The objective of the proposed Regulations is to implement the AMP regime contemplated in Part IX of the Act (Commissioner of Official Languages). They will enable the COL to impose AMPs on entities subject to the Act and will clarify how the AMP regime is to operate. They will establish a transparent, flexible, predictable regime to encourage subject entities to comply with their language obligations.

The COL already has a range of enforcement tools at his disposal: alternative dispute resolution; publication of investigation summaries, findings and recommendations; and compliance agreements (the power to impose an AMP will be conditional on the COL’s having first invited the entity to enter into a compliance agreement). The new power to impose AMPs will, therefore, be a discretionary power of last resort on the continuum of powers available to the COL.

Description

Determination of subject entities

The proposed Regulations will identify the entities subject to the AMP regime. According to the Act, to be subject to the regime, entities must have duties under Part IV of the Act and the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations (Official Languages Regulations), operate in the transportation sector and provide services to the travelling public. The list of entities includes Air Canada, VIA Rail Canada Inc., Marine Atlantic Inc. and designated airport authorities within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act.

Criteria for imposing AMPs

All provisions of Part IV (sections 22 to 30 of the Act) and all corresponding sections of the Official Languages Regulations will be covered by the AMP regime.

Range of penalties

The modernized Act allows the Commissioner to impose administrative monetary penalties, thereby strengthening his powers as they relate to the health and safety of the travelling public. During the preliminary consultations, many stakeholders stressed the importance of recognizing due diligence on the part of the entities subject to the proposed Regulations and of having a system of graduated, proportionate penalties. Stakeholders identified a number of mitigating and aggravating factors that should guide the determination of penalty amounts. Aggravating factors included the duration of the violation, the extent to which it was repetitive, the impact on passenger rights, the weight of the evidence, and the consequences for public health and passenger safety. In the case of services provided pursuant to a contract, the penalty for breaches would be more lenient, reflecting the operational constraints involved in providing the services and the lower level of control exercised by the subject entity over the services.

The proposed Regulations will therefore provide for a range of penalties, with the Commissioner determining the exact amount of each penalty on the basis of the type of violation, the size of the entity and the Commissioner’s assessment of any aggravating or mitigating factors.

Violations will be categorized as follows:

The criteria that the Commissioner will use to determine the severity of the penalty include

Table 3: Range of penalties
Type of violation Amount
A Up to $25,000
B Up to $50,000
C $5,000–$50,000

By fixing the penalty amount within the ranges set out above, the Commissioner will need to assess the nature of the violation against the criteria in the Act and the proposed Regulations. He could order a nominal penalty of $500 for example. The discretion accorded to the Commissioner of Official Languages is explained by his legal status: as an officer of Parliament, rather than an officer of the executive branch, he enjoys considerable latitude under the regime in determining the appropriate amounts of penalties.

Rules for service of documents

The proposed Regulations will establish the acceptable methods for serving notices of violation and related documents to the deputy head or other administrative head of the subject entity. Methods of service will include

The proposed Regulations will require proof of service in the form of

In the absence of an acknowledgment of receipt, the service is considered effective on the seventh day following the date indicated on the notice of receipt from the post office or courier.

Content of notice of violation

In addition to the content requirements for notices of violation in subsection 65.6(4) of the Act,footnote 2 the proposed Regulations provide that each notice of violation related to the imposition of an AMP must include all the relevant information, such as the date the violation was noted, the date the violation was reported to the COL and any other relevant documents mentioned or summarized in the investigation report (e.g. photos, screenshots). The proposed Regulations also require that the notice of violation specify the designated recipient of the payment — the Receiver General for Canada — and the methods of payment.

In addition, the proposed Regulations will require the COL to provide a detailed justification for each penalty, explaining the reasons for the amount. This justification will include an assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors that informed the decision, including the determination and consideration of the size of the entity, and an explanation of the methodology used to determine the penalty amount within the range provided for in the proposed Regulations.

Coming into force and 10-year review of the proposed Regulations

The proposed Regulations will come into force on the date of their registration. However, they do specify that penalties may not be imposed for Type A violations until one year after the proposed Regulations come into force.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will be required to review the Regulations and their administration and operation every 10 years. A report of the review will then need to be tabled in each House of Parliament within the first 30 sitting days of that House.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Pre-Canada Gazette consultation strategy

The pre-consultation strategy of the Department of Canadian Heritage (the Department) was rolled out in two phases: pre-consultations with the various stakeholders and an online questionnaire for the general public.

The pre-consultations addressed the following questions: Which entities should be subject to the regime? What rights and obligations should be in scope? What should the AMP amounts and criteria be? And what procedural requirements should apply to such things as the service of documents and the content of notices of violation? Between April and July 2024, a total of 18 meetings, virtual or face-to-face, were held with key stakeholders, including official language minority communities, advocacy organizations from certain sectors, provincial and territorial representatives, federal institutions, and entities subject to the OLA. These meetings brought together over 140 individuals representing nearly 80 organizations. In addition, seven briefs were received and analyzed. One notable consultation session was held in person in Halifax on June 6, 2024, bringing together over 30 member organizations of the FĂ©dĂ©ration des communautĂ©s francophones et acadienne. The opinions shared at this meeting provided valuable input into the development process for the proposed Regulations. At the same time, from May 9 to July 17, 2024, an online questionnaire was made available to all Canadians, offering them the opportunity to answer a series of questions and comment on various aspects of the Department’s two regulatory initiatives (regulations for the AMP regime and regulations under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act). By the end of the pre-consultation period, that questionnaire had been completed by over 1 300 respondents, of whom 679 (50%) completed the AMP section. Respondents pointed to the inadequacy of the COL’s existing powers and the need for harsher penalties to ensure compliance with language obligations. In particular, they proposed strengthening the powers of the COL, improving public education and awareness, and imposing proportionate, graduated penalties.

The discussions with stakeholders identified important considerations concerning key aspects of the AMP regime. These have been incorporated into the regulatory development process, ensuring a consistent and effective rollout. Between August and September 2025, targeted discussions were also held with key implementation partners to validate certain technical and operational details. This helped ensure the proposal reflects accurate implementation considerations. These exchanges were limited in scope and do not replace the broader consultation opportunities that will follow prepublication in Part I of the Canada Gazette.

Summary of positions expressed by the parties consulted
Entities to be subject to the regime

Some stakeholders, notably community organizations, fully supported applying the regime to airport authorities as well as to VIA Rail Canada Inc., Air Canada, and Marine Atlantic Inc. Most explicitly asked that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority also be included. Others advocated a more inclusive and equitable approach, calling for all entities subject to Part IV of the OLA to be included without exception. Among the latter, some entities subject to the OLA and certain organizations representing specific sectors stressed the importance of including the Canada Border Services Agency, Passport Canada, certain port authorities, and businesses operating in sectors with a direct impact on passenger health and safety. However, some of the entities proposed for inclusion did not meet the definition in the OLA. Nevertheless, the stakeholders in question felt that including those entities would ensure the consistency and uniformity of the AMP regime.

On the other hand, some stakeholders, representing various groups of entities, felt that no administrative monetary penalties regime should be introduced at all and that, if such a regime were introduced, airports and ports should be excluded to avoid imposing additional costs on the travelling public. That said, these associations did put forward some constructive proposals that have fed into the Department’s work on the proposed Regulations.

Other stakeholders noted that the definition in the Act already excluded certain entities outright, notably the Canada Border Services Agency and port authorities (who deal with goods as part of their business). A number also mentioned that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority should be included in the regime. The Commissioner, for his part, felt that all entities that met the criteria in section 65.2 should be designated in the proposed Regulations. He called for as broad a definition as possible, arguing that the scope of the regime was already very limited.

The Department has taken into consideration the information shared by the various stakeholders in identifying the entities that will be subject to the AMP regime, namely, Air Canada, VIA Rail Canada Inc., Marine Atlantic Inc. and the 21 airport authorities designated under the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act.

Provisions on communications with the public and on services to the public to be covered by the AMP regime

A number of stakeholders, including some entities subject to Part IV of the OLA, stressed the need to avoid any arbitrariness in identifying violations and to ensure that penalties were accompanied by a clear and objective justification. In their view, AMPs should be imposed only for precisely defined, verifiable offences documented by an impartial authority, with the goal of redressing systematically unacceptable behaviour. Some stakeholders, including the OCOL, recommended that all of Part IV, without exception, be covered by the AMP regime, while others felt that certain provisions should be excluded, particularly those relating to oral communications.

Respondents to the online questionnaire expressed a range of views on the use of AMPs and were split more or less evenly among three camps. About a third of respondents said that penalties should be imposed for any violation of the OLA. Another third favoured a more targeted approach, while the final third opposed the use of administrative monetary penalties altogether. Opinions also differed on how much leeway the OCOL should have in imposing AMPs. Some stakeholders, including the Commissioner himself, argued for greater flexibility so that he could take special circumstances into account before deciding to impose an AMP. Others preferred a more prescriptive framework, expressing concerns about the OCOL’s impartiality and the need to reduce any perception of arbitrariness in the process.

Respondents also reported that over the preceding 12 months, the most frequent complaints — wherever there had been one or more official language violations involving services to the travelling public — had concerned the unavailability of services in the official language of choice and the absence of active offer of services in both official languages. Another concern raised by a number of respondents was the inadequacy of the COL’s current range of powers and the need for harsher penalties to ensure compliance with language standards. These respondents recommended strengthening the COL’s powers; introducing proportionate, graduated penalties; and providing positive incentives to encourage compliance with the Act.

Given this divergence of opinion, the proposed Regulations seek to strike a balance between flexibility and stringency. To ensure impartiality and fairness, the Department is proposing a range of penalties that, while based on the type of violation, nonetheless allows the COL to take aggravating or mitigating factors into account in determining AMP amounts. This approach addresses the expectations of certain stakeholders — those who favoured a clear framework and predictability in how AMPs were calculated — while reserving a measure of discretion for the COL. In addition, the content requirements for notices of violation, including the mandatory content and the detailed justification for the penalty amount imposed, make for a tougher and more transparent regime.

Penalty amounts, criteria and ranges

The majority of stakeholders stressed the importance of recognizing due diligence on the part of the subject entities and of having a system of graduated, proportionate penalties. Stakeholders identified a number of mitigating and aggravating factors that should guide the determination of penalty amounts. Aggravating factors included the duration of the violation, the extent to which it was repetitive, the impact on passenger rights, the weight of the evidence, and the consequences for public health and passenger safety. On the other hand, efforts to remedy the violation, cooperation with the OCOL, operational constraints making it more difficult to resolve the compliance issue or prevent its recurrence, the level of control that the entity enjoyed, and the entity’s financial capacity — as a function of its revenues — to absorb a penalty were recognized as mitigating factors. For his part, the Commissioner felt that, in the event that a range is established, a number of relevant criteria are already identified in the Act. In addition to these, he noted the importance of allowing the Commissioner to consider the purpose of the penalty, the nature of the violation, the degree of intentionality or negligence, and the competitive or financial benefits that the offending organization might have derived from the violation.

Some organizations representing specific sectors stressed the importance of establishing clear, objective criteria — for example excluding complaints about language quality or accent and exempting oral communications. They also emphasized the need to promote fairness, consistency and uniformity in the handling of violations. Some of these stakeholders believed that the penalties regime should cover all stages of the traveller’s journey, while setting minimum criteria for imposing an AMP. They also warned that the increased costs associated with the introduction of the regime could compromise the viability of services provided by entities in the transportation sector and that these costs could be passed on directly to passengers. Others insisted that imposing an AMP to enforce compliance with Part IV of the Act should be a last resort, after the COL has exhausted his other enforcement tools.

The Department has taken into account all the points of view expressed during the consultations in order to develop a fair and balanced penalties regime. In developing the penalty range, it has carefully examined stakeholder suggestions, particularly those concerning aggravating and mitigating factors. By incorporating these contributions, the Department is aiming for a regime that allows for a nuanced assessment of the various situations that may arise and penalties that are proportionate to the violation, while taking into account the operational realities and level of complexity of the entities involved.

Notice of violation and service of documents relating to penalties

The majority of stakeholders stressed the importance of a clear, detailed notice of violation containing specific information on the violations and the corrective action to be taken. They insisted that the notice of violation be based on clear, objective, recent evidence, and that it include all relevant information on the violation, such as the identities of those involved and the circumstances surrounding the incident, in order to allow for a fair defence. They also recommended that the notice of violation specify realistic corrective action that the institution could take to resolve the problem and not penalize the institution for failing to take action beyond its abilities.

In addition, many community organizations and spokespersons for specific sectors wanted the notice of violation to specify whether the issue was systemic and to propose options for corrective action. Some stakeholders also suggested that information on AMPs be made public and that the Commissioner institute a swift, fluid process for handling penalties, with clear rules concerning the service of documents and the relevant procedure. In particular, they recommended allowing for several methods of service. The proposed Regulations should include explicit tools for serving documents quickly and efficiently.

A number of stakeholders also stressed the importance of developing effective mechanisms for assessing complaints and expediting the production of investigation reports. Others, including the OCOL, suggested including a mechanism for periodic review or revision of the proposed Regulations. Some respondents to the online questionnaire shared this perspective, adding that audits should be conducted to verify whether corrective action had been taken in response to penalties.

The Department has considered input from stakeholders and the features of the various existing federal AMP regimes in establishing the requirements for notices of violation and service of documents, while respecting the confidentiality requirements in the Act.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

Pursuant to the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an assessment of modern treaty implications was conducted on the proposed Regulations. The analysis concluded that the proposed Regulations were unlikely to impact any specific obligations under modern treaties.

The Indigenous engagement strategy was informed by pre-consultations with various key stakeholders in spring/summer 2024, which yielded topics to be discussed with communities. In accordance with section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Department has decided to consult various Indigenous representatives, including national organizations, to ensure that the proposed Regulations are consistent with the principles of the Declaration, particularly as they relate to language and culture.

Indigenous engagement was carried out jointly by the Department and the Treasury Board Secretariat, whose own regulatory proposal will clarify the duties of federal institutions subject to Part VII of the modernized OLA (Advancement of Equality of Status and Use of English and French).

Engagement with Indigenous communities began in November 2024 with meetings with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), as well as with formal communications announcing the start of the process to approximately 13 national and/or provincial/territorial organizations and entrepreneurial/economic organizations. Official communications, meetings and discussions continued in December 2024 and January 2025 with the three national Indigenous organizations (ITK, AFN, MĂ©tis National Council). The discussions focused on broader issues concerning official languages and Indigenous languages, in keeping with the organizations’ priorities. No comments were received from the organizations during this phase of engagement. Dialogue with these organizations will continue during the process of tabling the proposed Regulations in Parliament and following prepublication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Broader Indigenous engagement might continue at that time.

Instrument choice

The legislative framework in Part IX of the Act explicitly lists which elements of the AMP regime must be implemented by regulation. The Act does not allow for implementation by any means other than regulations (e.g. directives, policies). Given this legislative requirement, developing regulations is not only appropriate but necessary for the smooth operation of the regime, and no other instrument has been considered.

The Act does provide for some flexibility in selecting which provisions of Part IV of the Act and of the Official Languages Regulations are to be covered by the AMP regime. The favoured approach — one without exemptions — seeks to ensure immediate, uniform application of language obligations, thus simplifying the regulatory framework. This comprehensive inclusion of all provisions will improve compliance with language rights and ensure fair and proportionate treatment for all entities concerned.

With regard to penalties, the Act allows for the adoption of fixed amounts or a range. To ensure that penalties are proportionate to the seriousness of the violation and non-compliance with language obligations, a range has been adopted. The proposed Regulations feature a clear formula and criteria aligned with other AMP frameworks, allowing the COL to assess each case individually according to the evidence, thus promoting compliance rather than punishing offenders.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Benefits

The introduction of an AMP regime is intended to improve compliance with the language obligations set out in the Act and its regulations. Although the benefits of improved compliance are difficult to quantify, a number of qualitative benefits can be identified. These include expanded access to services in both official languages across Canada for the travelling public. Improved compliance on the part of the subject entities should also translate into fewer violations and, therefore, fewer complaints to the COL. In the long run, this could even lead to a reduction in the COL’s administrative burden associated with handling complaints and could boost public confidence in the ability of these entities to provide services in both official languages.

Costs to subject entities

The proposed Regulations make no changes to Part IV of the OLA or its regulations, which have been in force since 1988 and 1991, respectively. As a result, entities already complying with their obligations should not bear any additional costs. In accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide, AMPs are not considered to be compliance or administrative costs. These costs are incurred as a result of a violation of the Act or regulations under Part IV of the Act and, therefore, have no legal basis. Correspondingly, the costs to entities of paying AMPs are not considered in the regulatory analysis, as they occur only in instances of non-compliance with Part IV of the OLA and its regulations.

Costs to government

The COL will impose AMPs only as a last resort, after reviewing complaints, carrying out an investigation and inviting the entity in question to enter into a compliance agreement. The first part of this process involves procedures already in place within OCOL, i.e. procedures for conducting investigations and making recommendations. What is new under the AMP regime is the issuance of notices of violation, the service of documents on non-compliant entities and the imposition of penalties. Although some of these procedures are new, they may resemble other existing OCOL processes, such as those for the COL’s interventions before the courts.

Based on discussions and data provided by the COL, the Department estimates that the costs carried by his office will amount to $2.7 million over a 10-year period (2026–2035), in constant 2024 dollars, discounted to the base year 2026 using a 7% discount rate. These costs include the following:

Small business lens

The small business lens does not apply to this regulatory proposal, as the proposed Regulations will entail no incremental costs, direct or indirect, for small businesses. Penalties are transfers and are not considered an administrative or compliance burden. While some of the entities on which AMPs could be imposed (12 airport authorities) do have fewer than 100 employees, the range in the proposed Regulations provides for different amounts depending on the size of the entity. The COL would impose smaller AMPs on entities with fewer than 100 employees than on entities with more than 100 employees.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as no incremental administrative burden is being imposed on businesses. Penalties are transfers and are not considered an administrative burden.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposed Regulations are unrelated to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum. The proposed Regulations are an enforcement tool, and alignment or coordination with other jurisdictions is not applicable.

Environmental effects 

Further to the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary review has concluded that no strategic environmental and economic assessment is required.

Gender-based analysis plus

The Department has carried out a gender-based analysis plus of the regulatory proposal. No impacts relating to gender or other identity factors have been identified in relation to the proposed Regulations, as those regulations are not expected to have any disproportionate impact on groups of people based on identity factors such as gender, race, ethnic origin, sexuality, religion, age or language. Moreover, no such concerns were raised during pre-consultations with stakeholders. That said, all populations making up the travelling public in Canada are expected to benefit from a better travel experience, regardless of their official language of choice.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The proposed Regulations will come into force upon registration, accompanied by the order in council required to activate the AMP regime as set out in the Act. The first year of implementation will be marked by key milestones in ensuring consistent, effective operation of the regime, with targeted efforts to inform subject entities and support the staff responsible for the regime’s administration. To support the implementation of the Regulations, the Department will take targeted action aimed at subject entities in the form of communications and tools while also providing advice and interpretation in relation to the Regulations. These departmental activities will be carried out using the funding announced in Budget 2024, which runs until 2029. Over the longer term, the Department will have to analyze interpretation and enforcement issues to be able to carry out the planned review of the Regulations 10 years after they come into force. In addition, given the legislative requirement for the Minister to submit an annual report to Parliament on the matters relating to the official languages issues for which that Minister is responsible, the Minister is expected to report on the administration and operation of the Regulations in that annual report.

As the COL is the authority responsible for administering the regime and imposing administrative monetary penalties, it must ensure that the provisions are implemented in a fair, transparent manner and in accordance with the regulatory framework. The COL’s regulatory implementation activities will initially include adapting his digital complaint-management tool to handle administrative monetary penalties. This will allow for effective management of all information relating to the assessment, imposition and monitoring of penalties, which will be essential, particularly in meeting the regulatory requirement for an annual report on the use of the Commissioner’s power to impose an AMP and a 10-year review of the Regulations. This goes hand in hand with proper training for the COL’s staff, which will require the development of materials and tools in order to have in place procedures tailored to the provisions of the Regulations. Lastly, the COL will need to implement the methods of payment provided for in the Regulations (referenced in the Notice of violation section) so that the funds are duly remitted to the Receiver General for Canada.

Once the regime is in force, when the COL decides to impose an administrative monetary penalty, where applicable, the responsible employees will first need to identify the provision that has been violated and then cross-reference it with the type of violation corresponding to that provision (A, B or C) in order to determine the applicable penalty. Note that penalties may not be imposed for Type A violations until one year after the Regulations come into force.

To ensure a fair and proportionate penalty, employees will need to apply the aggravating or mitigating criteria set out in the Regulations. Their findings, including their analysis, their methodology and the methods of payment, must be recorded in a notice of violation and then served on the relevant entity by one of the methods of service provided for in the Regulations, such as electronic transmission or registered mail.

In the first few years of implementation of the regime, the number of complaints giving rise to penalties should be limited, and their deterrent effect should contribute to a gradual reduction in the number of violations — and therefore penalties — over time.

That said, it is reasonable to expect a certain volume of litigation, given the likelihood that some administrative penalties would be challenged in the courts. The COL will therefore have to make provision to manage such litigation by ensuring that he has the necessary resources to support his decisions.

In the short term, OCOL has secured funding through 2029 (Budget 2024) for the implementation of the Official Languages Act. This funding will also support the use of the power to impose administrative monetary penalties once the Regulations take effect.

Once the Regulations are in force, OCOL will continue to enjoy the same level of operational funding for enforcement activities. The implementation of the AMP regime may require internal procedural adjustments to incorporate the new steps, but OCOL should be able to keep incremental costs to a minimum by leveraging existing resources and processes. Increased use of compliance agreements should also limit the need for penalties.

The Treasury Board Secretariat and Transport Canada play a strategic role in this process. The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for defining and interpreting the communications with and services to the public obligations under Part IV of the Official Languages Act and the Official Languages Regulations. Given the Treasury Board Secretariat’s central role in the implementation of Part IV, close collaboration was established while these regulations were being developed and will continue during their implementation. Transport Canada, for its part, is the portfolio department that regulates other aspects of transportation in Canada not regulated by the Official Languages Act. Given Transport Canada’s experience in dealing with the subject entities on other matters, it too is a key partner, and the collaboration established while these regulations were being developed will continue during their implementation. The COL will impose AMPs only as a last resort when other compliance mechanisms, such as compliance agreements, have failed. Given that the power to impose AMPs is discretionary, the COL will be able to use AMPs in specific situations, in addition to his other powers, including the power to investigate, publish investigation summaries and recommendations, employ alternative dispute resolution, invoke a wider range of grounds for refusing to investigate a complaint, and enter into compliance agreements with federal institutions. Before an AMP can be imposed, the following conditions must have been met:

Entities receiving an AMP will have 30 business days to contest the decision in the Federal Court, challenging the facts of the case, the amount of the penalty, or both. The imposition of an AMP does not prevent the complainant from exercising other legal remedies if available.

Implementation of the proposed Regulations may require the development of several tools to ensure consistent, effective administration of the AMP regime. This could include the production of training materials, communication resources for subject entities and the public, and guides for OCOL staff. The latter will also have to be properly trained before the regime comes into effect.

Under the Act, the COL’s annual report will have to include information on the administration of the AMP regime, such as the number of notices of violation issued, the relevant facts of the violations, and the amount of the penalties imposed, if any. This approach is designed to strengthen transparency and confidence in the management of the regime, while ensuring rigorous monitoring of violations and corrective action.

Contact

Richard LĂ©ger
Director
Official Languages Regulations Directorate
Department of Canadian Heritage
200 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
J8X 4C6
Email: ReglementsLO-OLRegulations@pch.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given, under section 86footnote a of the Official Languages Act footnote b, that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Official Languages Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations under section 65.4footnote c of that Act.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, which 30 days must be days on which both Houses of Parliament are sitting. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Richard LĂ©ger, Director, Official Languages Regulations Directorate, Department of Canadian Heritage, 200 SacrĂ©-CĹ“ur Boulevard, Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4C6 (email: ReglementsLO-OLRegulations@pch.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 2, 2026

Janna Rinaldi
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Official Languages Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations

Definition

Definition of Act

1 In these Regulations, Act means the Official Languages Act.

Designation

Crown corporation or corporation

2 For the purposes of section 65.2 of the Act, the following crown corporations or corporations are designated:

Violations

Designation

3 (1) The contravention of a provision of Part IV of the Act set out in column 1 of the schedule, including in relation to any corresponding provision of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations set out in column 2, if applicable, is designated as a violation that may be proceeded with in accordance with sections 65.3 to 65.95 of the Act.

Classification

(2) The contravention referred to in subsection (1) is a Type A, B or C violation specified in column 3 of the schedule.

Exception — Type A violation

(3) Despite subsection (1), the contravention of a provision referred to in that subsection that occurs less than one year after these Regulations come into force and is a Type A violation is not designated as a violation that may be proceeded with in accordance with sections 65.3 to 65.95 of the Act.

Penalties

Range of penalties

4 The range of penalties in respect of a violation is

Other criteria — range of penalties

5 For the purposes of paragraph 65.4(3)(d) of the Act, the Commissioner must take into account the following criteria in determining the amount of a penalty:

Notice of Violation

Contents of notice of violation

6 For the purposes of paragraph 65.6(4)(h) of the Act, the following other information must be set out in a notice of violation:

Payment

Deemed date of payment

7 The penalty for a violation is deemed to have been paid

Service

Methods of service

8 (1) A notice of violation, along with any other relevant document, must be served on the designated body named in the notice by

Proof of service

(2) Service is proven by

Effective date of service

(3) Service is effective

Ten-Year Review

Review of Regulations

9 The Minister of Canadian Heritage must ensure that a review of these Regulations and their administration and operation is conducted 10 years after the day on which this section comes into force and every 10 years after that, and must cause a report on the review to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

Coming into Force

S.C. 2023, c. 15

10 These Regulations come into force on the day on which subsections 36(2) to (4), section 37, subsection 38(2), section 39 and subsections 43(1) and (3) of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages come into force, but if they are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

SCHEDULE

(Subsections 3(1) and (2))

Violations
Item

Column 1

Provision of the Official Languages Act

Column 2

Corresponding Provisions of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations

Column 3

Classification
1 22 – Type B
2 23(1) – Type B
3 23(2) 12(1) and 12(2) or (3) Type A
4 24(1)(a)(i) 8 Type C
5 24(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) 9 or 10 Type B
6 24(1)(b) 11 Type B
7 25 – Type B
8 26 – Type C
9 28 – Type B
10 29 – Type B
11 30 – Type B

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

  • contain personal information
  • contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
  • express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
  • contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
  • contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
  • constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
  • encourage or incite any criminal activity
  • contain external links
  • contain a language other than English or French
  • otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that communication by email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.