Bill C-232

[Leafless]

Supreme Court of Canada judicial appointees should be completely bilingual, according to a New Brunswick MP whose private member's bill would make the requirement law.

Eight of nine justices in the country's highest court can now hear cases in both English and French, but NDP MP Yvon Godin's Bill C-232 would make it mandatory for Supreme Court judges to be able to understand both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

John Major, who served as a Supreme Court of Canada justice from 1992 to 2005, said Godin's bill would make language skills more important than legal competence.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/04/06/nb-godin-supreme-court-judges-bilingual-442.html

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4329896&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24

Why not simply rename Canada to Quebec and get it over with.

Or at least hold a referendum over this issue.

[Handsome Rob]

Here's my question:

Is Quebec even remotely as compliant in favor of English, as the rest of the country is forced to be? 90% of hearsay says no, but I've never been and will probably never go.

[Argus]

Supreme Court of Canada judicial appointees should be completely bilingual, according to a New Brunswick MP whose private member's bill would make the requirement law.

Few Canadians realize the effect of these kinds of requirements. Since they tightened up the rules for public service managers and excutives a few years ago, most new senior managers and executives are Quebecers. the principal qualification for high office in the civil service, the primary screening tool, is now bilingualism - not ones ability to manage complex programs. Leadership? Not important, as long as you can speak whatever dull, inane, stupid things you want in both languages.

The requirement for SC judges will only further lower the calibre of the judges. Already, the're selected from a tiny group which meets the political, geographical, and often gender requirements. Now that will be further cut back to those who meet the linguistic requirements to.

So a seat is open and it's supposed to be filled with someone from BC. So now you need a fluent french/english speaker (I'm guessing about 1/2 of 1% of practicing lawyers there) from BC who is the right ideological affiliation. It'll basically be almost anyone they can find that can breath in both official languages.

[nicky10013]

Few Canadians realize the effect of these kinds of requirements. Since they tightened up the rules for public service managers and excutives a few years ago, most new senior managers and executives are Quebecers. the principal qualification for high office in the civil service, the primary screening tool, is now bilingualism - not ones ability to manage complex programs. Leadership? Not important, as long as you can speak whatever dull, inane, stupid things you want in both languages.

The requirement for SC judges will only further lower the calibre of the judges. Already, the're selected from a tiny group which meets the political, geographical, and often gender requirements. Now that will be further cut back to those who meet the linguistic requirements to.

So a seat is open and it's supposed to be filled with someone from BC. So now you need a fluent french/english speaker (I'm guessing about 1/2 of 1% of practicing lawyers there) from BC who is the right ideological affiliation. It'll basically be almost anyone they can find that can breath in both official languages.

This isn't true. As someone with experience in the process, they decide whether to hire you before they learn you're bilingual or not. If you're not, they send you to some place in to quebec for up to 52 weeks of language training.

[M.Dancer]

So a seat is open and it's supposed to be filled with someone from BC. So now you need a fluent french/english speaker (I'm guessing about 1/2 of 1% of practicing lawyers there) from BC who is the right ideological affiliation. It'll basically be almost anyone they can find that can breath in both official languages.

I should let my old GF form college know. She was recently attached to the Braidwood commision...and is fluently bilingual.

[Argus]

This isn't true. As someone with experience in the process, they decide whether to hire you before they learn you're bilingual or not. If you're not, they send you to some place in to quebec for up to 52 weeks of language training.

That was called bilingual non-imperative. It rarely happens any more, only in exceptional situations where they really can't find anyone bilingual.

And if you think about it - why would you choose someone you need for a job when he won't be available for at least a year when you can get someone now? He might not be as good, but he's here now. He'll do.

Anyway, they've been phasing out bilingual-non-imperative, and phasing out language training too.

[punked]

You guys miss the point of this Bill. All Canada law is Written in both French and English it is not written in one then translated to the other. So how you expect a judge to judge someone based on translated arguments. In Canada you are allowed to defend yourself in French OR English so the judge should speak both.

[fellowtraveller]

Since they tightened up the rules for public service managers and excutives a few years ago, most new senior managers and executives are Quebecers. the principal qualification for high office in the civil service, the primary screening tool, is now bilingualism - not ones ability to manage complex programs. Leadership? Not important, as long as you can speak whatever dull, inane, stupid things you want in both languages.

This is not new at all in Ottawa, the civil service at all levels has been dominated by Francphones for a long time. A quick read of any NCC departmental phone book reveals a large majority of French names.

That was called bilingual non-imperative. It rarely happens any more, only in exceptional situations where they really can't find anyone bilingual.

Correct, which means many jobs outside Quebec and Ottawa are staffed from Ottawa and Quebec.

And if you think about it - why would you choose someone you need for a job when he won't be available for at least a year when you can get someone now? He might not be as good, but he's here now. He'll do.

Time is utterly meaningless to the Public Service Commisssion. Money/cost is meaningless too. The only thing in short supply is common sense.

[CANADIEN]

While am unilingual Supreme Court judge would be at a disadvantage when arguments are made in the other language, this disadvantage would be compensated to at least some extent through interpretation (which I suppose the SCC has). While every Canadian has a right to use either English or French if their case appears in the SCC, it is not necessary that each and every judge be bilingual.

This means of course, btw, that an unilingual Francophone could sit on the SCC, right? I know thought it would not sit well with those who think only English should be permitted.

Edited April 15, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Muddy]

Someone should point out to the NDP that they are going to make Interpreters obsolete . They were probably mostly Quebecers too. Here I thought the NDP were for the working man!

[Shwa]

That was called bilingual non-imperative. It rarely happens any more, only in exceptional situations where they really can't find anyone bilingual.

And if you think about it - why would you choose someone you need for a job when he won't be available for at least a year when you can get someone now? He might not be as good, but he's here now. He'll do.

Anyway, they've been phasing out bilingual-non-imperative, and phasing out language training too.

Do you have some statistics, memo or other documentation to back this up or are you going anecdotal on this? It is true that a slew of mid-managerial jobs in the NCR require do require a measure of bilingualism, but not necessarily in the regions unless those jobs require supervision of staff of a different language.

[Shwa]

John Major, who served as a Supreme Court of Canada justice from 1992 to 2005, said Godin's bill would make language skills more important than legal competence.

Do they give tests to candidates for the Supreme Court to determine "legal competence?"

[g_bambino]

Do they give tests to candidates for the Supreme Court to determine "legal competence?"

Yes: their career up to that point.

[Shwa]

Yes: their career up to that point.

Does that include their political affiliations or leanings in their careers up to that point? Depending on which government is sitting, you may have different versions of "legal competence."

[Argus]

You guys miss the point of this Bill. All Canada law is Written in both French and English it is not written in one then translated to the other. So how you expect a judge to judge someone based on translated arguments. In Canada you are allowed to defend yourself in French OR English so the judge should speak both.

In an ideal world, a brilliant judge would be thoroughly, fluently, perfectly bilingual. This is not such a world. Very few people, even "fluent" bilingual people, are perfectly at ease with the other official language. I know a number of people with the highest level of bilingualism, and when it comes to important documents they vastly prefer to read them in their own langauge, even if translated.

Interpreting the nuances of judgements written in the arcane language of legalese is difficult enough without trying to do so in a second language. Unless you are raised from near birth you will always lack some familiarity of context, and the subtler determinations of the written words will elude you.

Merely being able to understand what the lawyers are saying to you is nice, of course, but decisions are not based on what the lawyers say before the court. They're based on the written submissions. I would far rather have a unilingual judge who is a top flight legal expert, than some barely capable journeyman who is wearing his robe because he was one of the very, very few bilngual people who wanted the job.

[Argus]

While am unilingual Supreme Court judge would be at a disadvantage when arguments are made in the other language,

Let's be clear on something. Only about 5% of Canadians are bilingual. Only a small fraction of those bilingual people would not be at a disadvantage when arguments are made in the other language. Anyone who has ever called up a government client services number is well-used to the "dis, dat and da udder ting" franglais of the "bilingual" rep they have to deal with. Their asiatic equicilent when the private sector outsources to India is similar. Both are much more difficult to communicate with on any kind of complex discussion.

Basically, in my experience, the only Francophones who speak English really well are those from outside Quebec. The only Anglos who speak French really well are from Quebec.

As far as unilingual French judges go - personally, given 90% or more of the cases before the SC are from outside Quebec and involve English, I think that would be fairly dumb.

[Argus]

Do you have some statistics, memo or other documentation to back this up or are you going anecdotal on this? It is true that a slew of mid-managerial jobs in the NCR require do require a measure of bilingualism, but not necessarily in the regions unless those jobs require supervision of staff of a different language.

The annoucement about bilingualism rules being enfored and non-imperative positions being phased out was made by the previous Liberal government and hasn't been rescinded. We see less and less language training where it used to be much more freely available. As for the NCR, it isn't "a slew of mid managerial jobs" it is ALL management, supervisor and exeecutive jobs - with a few rare exceptions for techincal fields and a few grandfathered boomers. And they don't require "some measure of bilingualism" they require fluency. In fact, 60% of all federal jobs in the NCR require bilingualism.

As far as "supervising staff of a different language" that's almost always the case. You could have 200 employees and if 1 is French you're required to be able to communicate with him/her in the language of their choice - even if they are bilingual - even if they were only hired specifically because they were bilingual.

[Argus]

Does that include their political affiliations or leanings in their careers up to that point? Depending on which government is sitting, you may have different versions of "legal competence."

Such things are not written down, but it's well known that governments like to appoint judges with the same sorts of ideological beliefs as they hold. So yes, that's an important consideration. What province they come from is important. If you want to make points with this or that group gender or ethnicity is an issue. For Paul Martin, the only issue was how they felt about gay rights - thus he appointed a pair of judges to the SC with very limited experience, neither of whom was known for enlightened judgements or legal brilliance - simply because they were known to be in favour of gay rights.

[Born Free]

For Paul Martin, the only issue was how they felt about gay rights - thus he appointed a pair of judges to the SC with very limited experience, neither of whom was known for enlightened judgements or legal brilliance - simply because they were known to be in favour of gay rights.

Poppycock.

I might add that it must seem horrible to you for a judge to uphold the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Argus]

Poppycock.

I might add that it must seem horrible to you for a judge to uphold the Canadian Human Rights Act.

What seems horrible to me is appointing barely qualified people into high positions of near absolute authority and then letting them write laws based on their own privately held ideological beliefs.

[Born Free]

What seems horrible to me is appointing barely qualified people into high positions of near absolute authority and then letting them write laws based on their own privately held ideological beliefs.

What laws did they write while sitting on the SC?

[Argus]

What laws did they write while sitting on the SC?

All kinds of laws have been written by the ideologues on the SC. Just to start with the fact our refugee system is in such a mess is because the SC changed the laws and expanded the definition of who is covered by the constitution. They've also wreaked havoc with their pronouncements on native claims, basically stating that as a matter of law, anything a native says he remembers his grandfather saying is to be given the same credence as written history. They've rewritten laws on search and seizures as well, to let murderers go free and make it far harder to arrest drug dealers. And of course, the judges have changed the law on marriage, and on who should and shouldn't be covered under discrimination laws.

[Smallc]

All kinds of laws have been written by the ideologues on the SC. Just to start with the fact our refugee system is in such a mess is because the SC changed the laws and expanded the definition of who is covered by the constitution. They've also wreaked havoc with their pronouncements on native claims, basically stating that as a matter of law, anything a native says he remembers his grandfather saying is to be given the same credence as written history. They've rewritten laws on search and seizures as well, to let murderers go free and make it far harder to arrest drug dealers. And of course, the judges have changed the law on marriage, and on who should and shouldn't be covered under discrimination laws.

They haven't written laws. They've simply interpreted the Constitution....their job.

[Born Free]

They haven't written laws. They've simply interpreted the Constitution....their job.

Thank you. You are correct.

[Argus]

They haven't written laws. They've simply interpreted the Constitution....their job.

Funny thing about "interpretation". When no one gets to second guess you or overrule you, you can interpret most legislation to say any damned thing you want it to say, regardless of the demonstrated, proveable intent of the people who wrote that legislation.

Intent, you see, is entirely in the eyes and mind of the beholder. The US Constitution didn't have to change from when it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves, to when it was not, but acceptable to deny Blacks basic rights, or to when that was not allowed either. All that changed were the people "interpreting" the constitution.