Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Part of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Preamble
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1
Fundamental Freedoms
2
Democratic Rights
3, 4, 5
Mobility Rights
6
Legal Rights
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Equality Rights
15
Official Languages of Canada
16, 16.1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Minority Language Education Rights
23
Enforcement
24
General
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Application of Charter
32, 33
Citation
34
v · The province of New Brunswick (red), where section 16.1 applies. Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the newest section of the Charter. It was enacted by the Constitution Amendment, 1993 (New Brunswick) and guarantees equality between English-speaking and French-speaking New Brunswickers. Section 16.1 (pronounced "sixteen point one") is not to be confused with subsection 16(1) ("sixteen one"), which is part of section 16 and goes back to 1982. Section 16.1 is a separate section;[1] the "point one" numbering simply indicates that at some time (i.e. in 1993) an amendment inserted this new section between two existing sections without renumbering them. Text The section reads, “ 16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities. (2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to subsection (1) is affirmed. ” Purpose Section 16.1 makes reference to a need for institutions for both language groups, including educational institutions, and it seemingly gives the provincial government powers to protect the right.[2] This is not completely revolutionary in that this merely entrenches laws already found in An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick (1981), as noted in the 2001 Court of Appeal case Charlebois v. Mowat. The section can be seen as providing "collective rights," and one critic charged that a deeper meaning to the section would have to be decided by Canadian courts.[3] In Charlebois v. Mowat, the court ruled that section 16.1, as well as subsections 16(2) and 18(2), require bilingual municipal laws when the minority language population of a municipality is significant. The ruling was made primarily on the basis of the court's interpretation of subsection 18(2)), but in its ruling the court also stated that section 16.1 is "remedial", meaning that it is supposed to fix historical problems.[4] (A related case later went to the Supreme Court as Charlebois v. Saint John (City).) History An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick was enacted by Premier Richard Hatfield, in what was called a "separate but equal" approach of providing separate school boards for both linguistic groups. Its principles were incorporated into the Constitution of Canada, through section 16.1, in response to a shift in provincial politics in the early 1990s. Whereas in the 1980s all parties had supported the rise of bilingualism in New Brunswick, in 1991 a new party called the Confederation of Regions Party, which was opposed to official bilingualism, became the official opposition in the legislature. The legislation was thus constitutionalized by a pro-bilingualism provincial government, to ensure the survival of the language rights.[5] The constitutionalization of the legislation was originally meant to be accomplished as part of a package of amendments known as the Charlottetown Accord in 1992. When the Accord was rejected in a national referendum, the amendment was made separately, prompting Professor Peter Russell to refer to this as an "encouraging [sign] that Canadians may be recovering the capacity to accomplish constitutional reform without linking everything together and getting bogged down in the mega constitutional swamp."[6] Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 was the part of the amending formula used to add section 16.1 to the Charter. This meant the amendment was approved by the province affected (New Brunswick) and the Canadian Senate and Canadian House of Commons, although constitutional lawyer Deborah Coyne argued that the amendment involved federal jurisdiction and thus seven provinces would be needed.[3] The House of Commons passed the amendment with a vote of 219-2. This attracted some criticism, with columnist William Johnson claiming that Parliament had not fully analyzed the amendment and tried to stifle public discussion. He even suggested that section 16.1 might create two governments for New Brunswick, one in English and one in French.[3] Earlier, this columnist had also charged that enshrining collective rights in the Constitution was "alien to liberalism," and would undermine the individual in favour of a larger group; he also said section 16.1 excluded Aboriginal peoples in New Brunswick and could make them "second-class citizens." He compared section 16.1 to how the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord would have recognized Quebec as a distinct society.[7] However, Opposition leader Jean Chrétien, who at that time represented Acadians, said that "For me it is a great day. It is an example that we can be together and at the same time be different in Canada."[3] A Montreal Gazette article also approved, calling the New Brunswick government "courageous" because of its resistance to the Confederation of Regions Party, and added that the section provided a "noble, generous vision of Canadian duality and co-existence. Too bad it seems confined to New Brunswick."[8] The amendment was signed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Attorney General Pierre Blais, and Registrar General Pierre H. Vincent, under a proclamation of Governor General Ray Hnatyshyn in Ottawa on March 12, 1993. Influence outside New Brunswick Montfort Hospital. In 2000, an Ontario court ruled that the province was legally obligated to keep from closing the Montfort Hospital as part of its program of merging many of the hospitals in the Ottawa region. The basis for the decision was the court's conclusion that this was a logical application of an unwritten constitutional principle of minority rights, which had been found by the Supreme Court in the 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec. Since the Montfort Hospital was the only hospital in the region operating primarily in French, it amounted to a protected parallel service-provider, much as New Brunswick's French-language and English-language school systems are parallel service providers, and therefore as an essential component of the collective rights of Ottawa's Franco-Ontarian population. The government of Ontario criticized the decision as judicial activism, and charged that "The divisional court decision has effectively rewritten the constitution to make [Section] 16.1 applicable to Ontario despite the express intention that it apply to New Brunswick alone."[9] References ^ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003), p. 1214 ^ Deborah Coyne, "New Brunswick amendment has fundamental flaw," The Gazette, Montreal, Quebec: January 13, 1993. pg. B.3. ^ a b c d William Johnson, "Unseemly haste to amend constitution without debate," The Hamilton Spectator. Hamilton, Ontario: February 4, 1993. pg. A.7 ^ CanLII - 2001 NBCA 117 (CanLII) ^ Dyck, Rand. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. Third ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000), p. 95. ^ Russell, Peter. Constitutional Odyssey, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), p. 231. ^ William Johnson, "New Brunswick amendment tramples individual rights," The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec: January 16, 1993. pg. B.5. ^ "New Brunswick leads the way," The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec: December 4, 1992. pg. B.2. ^ Wills, Terrance. “English will do: Ontario: Franco-Ontarians’ plight not our problem: Harris.” The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec: July 16, 2000, A.1.FRO. External links Full text of the Constitution Amendment, 1993 (New Brunswick) Full text of Court of Appeal's Charlebois v. Mowat decision Fundamental Freedoms: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Charter of Rights website with video, audio and the Charter in over 20 languages Wikimedia Foundation. 2010. Игры ⚽ Поможем написать курсовую Constitution 1857 National Park South African Constitution of 1961 Look at other dictionaries: Section Thirty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is the last section of Canada s Charter of Rights, which is entrenched in the Constitution Act, 1982 . Section 34 provides guidance for the legal citation of the Charter .Under the heading Citation, the section reads:FunctionSection 34, along… …   Wikipedia Section Twenty-five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is the first section under the heading General in the Charter , and like other sections within the General sphere, it aids in the interpretation of rights elsewhere in the Charter . While section 25 is also the Charter section that deals most… …   Wikipedia Section Twenty-eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is a part of the Constitution of Canada s Charter of Rights. It does not contain a right so much as it provides a guide as to how to interpret rights in the Charter. Specifically, section 28 addresses concerns of sexual equality, and is analogous …   Wikipedia Section Thirty-one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is a part of the Constitution of Canada, which clarifies that the Charter does not increase the powers of either the federal government or the legislatures of the provinces of Canada. As a result, only the courts may enforce the rights in the… …   Wikipedia Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts. It is believed that section… …   Wikipedia Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights :… …   Wikipedia Section Twenty-six of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Section Twenty six of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like other provisions within the section 25 to 31 bloc, provides a guide in interpreting how the Charter should affect Canadian society. The section s particular role is to… …   Wikipedia Section Twenty-two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is one of several sections of the Charter relating to the official languages of Canada. The official languages, under section 16, are English and French. Section 22 is specifically concerned with political rights relating to languages besides… …   Wikipedia Section Twenty-one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is one of several sections of the Charter relating to the official languages of Canada. The official languages, under section 16 of the Charter , are English and French. Sections 16 to 20 guarantee a number of rights in regard to the use of these …   Wikipedia Section Sixteen One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is the newest section of the Charter . It was enacted by the Constitution Amendment, 1993 (New Brunswick) and guarantees equality between English speaking and French speaking New Brunswickers.Section 16.1 (pronounced sixteen point one ) is not to …   Wikipedia 18+ © Academic, 2000-2024 Contact us: Technical Support, Advertising Dictionaries export, created on PHP, Joomla, Drupal, WordPress, MODx. Mark and share Search through all dictionaries Translate… Search Internet Share the article and excerpts Direct link … Do a right-click on the link above and select “Copy Link”