Bill C-232

[msdogfood]

In my view, I would think as a judge I would want to speak both languages and not rely on someone else's interpretation of what the person was saying. Have your heard the problems some of those people have in Question Period going from French to English? People always want to take the easy way out in a situation and that is not always the right way of doing things.

we will never have enaf Judges that can speak both languages.

Canada has only 7% of its population that can speak both languages

[Bonam]

I don't really understand the problem. Just have people hired as judges, if they only know one language, be provided with training in the other language. Probably in Western Canada this means the actual other language (Mandarin), not French. This is all just a bunch of BS with people getting needlessly polarized over an issue that is solved with trivial ease.

[CANADIEN]

we will never have enaf Judges that can speak both languages.

Canada has only 7% of its population that can speak both languages

Actually, we're talking about 9 judges

[CANADIEN]

I don't really understand the problem. Just have people hired as judges, if they only know one language, be provided with training in the other language. Probably in Western Canada this means the actual other language (Mandarin), not French. This is all just a bunch of BS with people getting needlessly polarized over an issue that is solved with trivial ease.

In the Supreme Court of canada, this means our two national and official languages.

[msdogfood]

OK in law ware is that indicated or defined???

So no one can find this!????.

[Argus]

I don't really understand the problem. Just have people hired as judges, if they only know one language, be provided with training in the other language. Probably in Western Canada this means the actual other language (Mandarin), not French. This is all just a bunch of BS with people getting needlessly polarized over an issue that is solved with trivial ease.

You think learning another language is a trivial undertaking? Most of the people who are appointed to the Supreme Court are jurists with a long history behind them (not counting when someone like Paul Martin appoints gay rights zealots with little experience or legal knowledge). The older you are the more difficult it is to learn another language to the fluency necessary to be of any real assistance. The idea of sending judges in their mid fifties or early sixties to language school for a year or eighteen months is ludicrous. Even if they succeed their linguistic ability will be halting and hesitant.

[Borg]

I've never been and will probably never go.

By nmissing kebec you are missing nothing - time for them to go anyways - an expensive and spoiled child that has been pandered to and let run amuck for years - all in order to prevent tantrums

Would not be missed by many Canucks

Borg

[Smallc]

By nmissing kebec you are missing nothing - time for them to go anyways

Ah yes, people who claim to like Canada telling another part of the country to get lost.

I'd mis Quebec. Canada would not exist without it. They are a founding member of Confederation, and are still very important to who we are. We are stronger together than we'd ever be apart. Canada, as the second largest part of our economy and a large energy producer...as well as a Common language with many European countries (among other things), adds to our influence. Quebec, in turn gains increased fiscal capacity and stability, and the chance to be part of a very stable federation.

Quebec and the rest of Canada gain a great deal from eachother. Quebec is part of Canada and Canada's unique identity. Quebec and the rest of Canada could never be easily separated, and there's no reason to separate the two. A significant majority of Quebecers have never wanted to leave (and the number that really want to leave is smaller than it appears, as it was a smaller reported number before the Sponsorship Scandal), and a large majority of Canadians want Quebec to stay....so speak for yourself when you say they wouldn't be missed.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Smallc

[Leafless]

I'd mis Quebec. Canada would not exist without it.

There would be problems but I think Canada would do fine without Quebec and probably have enough money to boot to pave Canada's crumbling roadways.

They are a founding member of Confederation

Actually prior to the BNA Act it was the British colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island that discussed with Britain the possibility of a union to counter the threat of American annexation and to reduce the cost of governance. It was the British government that approaced the British colony of the Province of Canada that contained upper Canada (now Ontario) and lower Canada ( now Quebec) to be included in talks of a possible union.

We are stronger together than we'd ever be apart.

You mean Quebec is stronger after taking advantage of Canada as a federation, to pursue it's forever ongoing cultural demands.

Quebec, as the second largest part of our economy and a large energy producer..

Thanks to the federal government and the tax payers of Canada who subsidize just about everthing in Quebec.

as well as a Common language with many European countries (among other things), adds to our influence.

What influence? If you are talking about la Francophonie it mainly serves the province of Quebec.

If you are talking about trade with Eurpean countries, it is pretty dismal compared to our major trading partner the U.S.

Quebec, in turn gains increased fiscal capacity and stability, and the chance to be part of a very stable federation.

Quebec is the cause of an unstable federation as attested by it's two referendums on separating from Canada.

And according to an Ottawa Citizen article, "Get ready for the next referendum" Wed, May 12/2010, pg. A13, a third referendum could be in the cards if PQ leader Pauline Marois gets her way after possibly winning a Quebec election.

A significant majority of Quebecers have never wanted to leave (and the number that really want to leave is smaller than it appears, as it was a smaller reported number before the Sponsorship Scandal), and a large majority of Canadians want Quebec to stay

Canada won the 1995 Quebec referendum on separation by a mere 55.000 votes. I would not call that a large majority of Canadians who want Quebec to stay.

[Smallc]

I don't know if you read the article, but it's actually rather rather comforting. The only thing it gets wrong is the clear question, which has to happen. In a way, I agree with the article. Perhaps we should have another referendum, with a clear question, once and for all. Based on the polls, it's clear which side will win, especially given the number of separatists (about 1/2) who are very soft supporters that didn't even support sovereignty 10 short years ago.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Smallc

[CANADIEN]

Canada won the 1995 Quebec referendum on separation by a mere 55.000 votes. I would not call that a large majority of Canadians who want Quebec to stay.

Last time i checked, the 1995 referendum was not a pan-Canadian one.

[bloodyminded]

Last time i checked, the 1995 referendum was not a pan-Canadian one.

Wow. Holy cow.

That you even had to point this out is amazing.

[Argus]

Ah yes, people who claim to like Canada telling another part of the country to get lost.

I'd mis Quebec. Canada would not exist without it.

Nonsense. What do you think would happen to the rest of us? We'd melt away into the seas or something? We're too left wing for the Americans to want us or us to want them. We'd still be Canada, just a richer Canada, with less whining.

[Remiel]

Nonsense. What do you think would happen to the rest of us? We'd melt away into the seas or something? We're too left wing for the Americans to want us or us to want them. We'd still be Canada, just a richer Canada, with less whining.

Obviously we would not cease to exist, as people. But we would not truly be what is meant by " Canada " any more than " Quebec " would be.

[Argus]

Bilingual SC justices is an example of linguistic madness and perceived rights gone bonkers.

Another academic brain fart from Ignatieff, who assumes that since he is bilingual its easy for anyone to learn a second language.

If from now on Supremes had to be bilingual enough so as not to need translators, the pool from which fluently bilingual judges would have to be drawn is so small it would effectively be a linguistic mudhole. The vast majority of this small group would be Quebec francophones who have been forced to learn English for their advanced studies or for economic reasons.

Barbara Kay

You want to get on the Supreme Court? You might want to study a little French."

A little French? Hmm. As someone who studied and practiced law in both French and English, I can tell Mr. Ignatieff that “a little French” won’t cut it if the goal is to be able to listen to a complex legal argument, read a factum, and ask intelligent questions in the language of Molière.

Tasha Kheiriddin