How has section 16 of the Charter been interpreted?

With respect to section 16 of the Charter, Beetz, J. began by observing in Société des Acadiens that the attitude of restraint advocated is compatible with section 16. Thus, at page 578, he specifically stated that subsection 19(2) being the provision which governed the case at bar, he did not need to “concern [himself] with the substantive content of s. 16, whatever it may be”. He thought nonetheless that something had to be said about the interpretative effect of section 16 as well as the question of the equality of the two official languages. On that point, he stated, at page 579: I think it is accurate to say that s. 16 of the Charter does contain a principle of advancement or progress in the equality of status or use of the two official languages. I find it highly significant however that this principle of advancement is linked with the legislative process referred to in s. 16(3), which is a codification of the rule in Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick, 1974 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182. The legislative process, unlike the judicial one, is a political process and hence particularly suited to the advancement of rights founded on political compromise.