SCOC - Appointees must be bilingual? Good or Bad Law

[SirJosephPorter]

Actually most people west of Ontario don't bother to learn French simply because there is no need for it and nobody to speak it with. In B.C. it would be better to have judges that speak Chinese. White people of all languages are now a minority in the Lower Mainland.
But then since there is no real difference between the two Eastern parties it doesn't surprise me that they kiss ass in Quebec where most of the votes are and to hell with the Western half of the country.

How is this kissing ass in Quebec? Most Quebec lawyers won't be eligible as well, since I assume most of them are not fluent in English.

But I can see PMs getting around this. What they may do is that they may appoint an English lawyer who knows French a bit, but is not fluent at it. Then they may make it a condition of appointment that he must become fluent in French in a year or two.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I never thought you and SJP would share the same stereotypical prejudices. But go figure. Anyone who knows at least two languages knows how easy it is to mess up a translation and how expensive and time-consuming quality-assured translations can be. Fluently bilingual judges could save much time in sifting through material without having to wait for a quality translation.

There is nothing prejudicial here, it is simply a statement of facts (and are you saying I agree with Colpy as well? Well, I really must reexamine the company I am keeping here).

The fact of the matter is that it is mainly liberals who try to be bilingual. Conservatives are concentrated mainly to the west of Ontario and most of them don’t bother to learn French. As to those who speak only French, many of them tend to be PQ and BQ supporters, both are parties of the left, comparable to NDP.

So it is a statement of fact, that it is mostly liberal lawyers who are bilingual, I don’t see where prejudice comes in. If SCOC justices are going to be selected from such a small pool, the court will retain its current philosophy and it won’t have any practical effect upon the court.

But I can see an advantage here. In USA, the court is purely a political body, like Senate or the House. How a justice interprets the constitution depends upon his political beliefs, not how he sees the constitution. Thus, a conservative justice thinks that roe vs. Wade is wrong, a liberal justice thinks it is right. In USA the stance adopted by the Supreme Court moves like a yoyo depending upon whether there is a democratic or a Republican majority on the court.

But selecting justices from a small pool of mainstream lawyers (and bilingual lawyers probably do represent the mainstream in Canada) will give the courts a stability which is rarely seen in US Supreme Court.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Colpy, take it easy on the poor guy; he just hasn't learnt to control his coprolalia yet.

And as for each Canadian having the right to use the official language of his choice, that's where I see the OLA fall apart. If X has a right to either language, then the government employee he's dealing with has an obligation to know both languages and serve him in that language, thus removing the government employees right to same. Canada's current OLA is totally archaic and illogical and in need of a major overhaul. Until that happens though, we must live with band aid solutions such as this law to ensure that all have an equal hearing before the Supreme Court.

Machjo, what surprises me is that Conservative MPs supported this. I assume at least a few Conservative MPs must have voted for it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed.

But I can well imagine this law making it difficult for a PM to appoint an extremist of either side to SCOC.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

5P, you bring up a good point there. Pragmatically speaking, would it be a necessary part of the job for a Supreme Court Judge to be able to speak and hear the spoken language for him to be able to perform his tasks efficiently? I don't know. If so, then certainly the ability to speak and hear ought to be requirements for the job. If not, then I fully agre with you that only the ability to read the language ought to suffice. But I'd need more information on the details of their daily tasks and the spoken and sound-recorded materials they must deal with on a regular basis.

As i mentioned before, a compromise could be reached. The new appointee to SCOC could be given one or two years to become fluent in French (or in English, as the case may be).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Let us be clear here, Colpy, it is one thing for a piece of private member’s business to pass the House of Commons, and quite another entirely for it to then also pass through the Honourable the Senate of Canada unchallenged (and it has not yet been read by the Senate). There is still much debate to be done on this bill, and our honourable senators are known for their very comprehensive studies when it comes to such fundamental changes to our institutions. I am confident that this bill will not move past the Senate unless it meets the very high expectations of the Red Chamber.

Also, it is unclear whether this bill would even have the votes to pass second reading in the Upper House; the bill only passed the Commons with a margin of three votes (the Government voting against, and the three opposition parties and one independent voting in favour). Nonetheless, it is ludicrous to suggest that this bill is an affront to the constitutional nature of the country; the Supreme Court was never imagined in our constitutional framework, becoming an instrument of the Parliament of Canada later on (and even then, it was not our court of highest authority for quite some time to come).

Government voting against and the other three parties voting for? Do you mean to say that the parties whipped their MPs on the issue? This is even more unusual. On a private member’s bill there usually is a free vote for everybody, including the cabinet ministers.

If there is whipping going on, they you are probably right, the bill will never pass the senate (I think Conservatives have a majority in the Senate).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Maybe it's unconstitutional.

I don't see why it would be unconstitutional.

 

[AnnaG]

It's political correctness with a dab of practicality.

 

[Goober]

I don't see why it would be unconstitutional.

SJP

Your posts and ref numbers below

Limiting the available appointees from one region is a receipe for disaster - Lowers the quality line dramatically along with a number of other problems -

Please refer to my post to Spade

Your Post 5 - So Supreme Court judges will be selected from a small pool of lawyers, whose philosophy is pretty much in agreement with the one held by the SCOC today. I don't think this will have any practical effect. As to its effect, I think it will be minimal. Bilingual lawyers mostly tend to be liberal, they have a high regard for the Charter, for minority rights, for multiculturalism etc. Conservative lawyers (or indeed most conservatives) don't bother learning French. On the other hand, liberals from Quebec (the NDP types), don't bother to learn English. You condemn the American System as it is based on Political belief - Yet you are in favor of it in Canada -

Your Post 51 "So it is a statement of fact, that it is mostly liberal lawyers who are bilingual, I don’t see where prejudice comes in. If SCOC justices are going to be selected from such a small pool, the court will retain its current philosophy and it won’t have any practical effect upon the court." "But I can see an advantage here. In USA, the court is purely a political body, like Senate or the House. How a justice interprets the constitution depends upon his political beliefs, not how he sees the constitution."

So Liberal Justices are fine - Conservatives and other political viewpoints are a tragedy for the country - Just love that Liberal Paternalism - Libs know best - Now pay your taxes and whats a few million or so in Graft every now and again - after all we Libs know what is best for you, the poor, the uneducated, those of differing views, the huddled masses - Prepare to be assimilated - Resistance is futile -

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP

Your posts and ref numbers below

Limiting the available appointees from one region is a receipe for disaster - Lowers the quality line dramatically along with a number of other problems -

Please refer to my post to Spade

I think PMs are required to keep the regional balance on the Supreme Court. I don't think they can appoint all the justices from one province, like Ontario. If a justice from the west retires, you may rest assured that a bilingual justice from the west will be appointed. The only problem is that he is much more likely to be a liberal than a conservative.

Your Post 5 - So Supreme Court judges will be selected from a small pool of lawyers, whose philosophy is pretty much in agreement with the one held by the SCOC today. I don't think this will have any practical effect. As to its effect, I think it will be minimal. Bilingual lawyers mostly tend to be liberal, they have a high regard for the Charter, for minority rights, for multiculturalism etc. Conservative lawyers (or indeed most conservatives) don't bother learning French. On the other hand, liberals from Quebec (the NDP types), don't bother to learn English. You condemn the American System as it is based on Political belief - Yet you are in favor of it in Canada -

Your Post 51 "So it is a statement of fact, that it is mostly liberal lawyers who are bilingual, I don’t see where prejudice comes in. If SCOC justices are going to be selected from such a small pool, the court will retain its current philosophy and it won’t have any practical effect upon the court." "But I can see an advantage here. In USA, the court is purely a political body, like Senate or the House. How a justice interprets the constitution depends upon his political beliefs, not how he sees the constitution."

So Liberal Justices are fine - Conservatives and other political viewpoints are a tragedy for the country - Just love that Liberal Paternalism - Libs know best - Now pay your taxes and whats a few million or so in Graft every now and again - after all we Libs know what is best for you, the poor, the uneducated, those of differing views, the huddled masses - Prepare to be assimilated - Resistance is futile -

Currently SCOC holds liberal positions when it comes to Charter, minority rights etc. If only bilingual justices are appointed, that will continue, I don't see anything changing.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think PMs are required to keep the regional balance on the Supreme Court. I don't think they can appoint all the justices from one province, like Ontario. If a justice from the west retires, you may rest assured that a bilingual justice from the west will be appointed. The only problem is that he is much more likely to be a liberal than a conservative.

Sorry to refute your statement, SirJosephPorter, but prime ministers maintaing a regional balance is by convention and political courtesy only; the only regional requirement for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, per section 6 of the Supreme Court Act, is that three of our honourable justices be appointed from the Province of Québec (this is so that there will always be a solid understanding of civil law, used only in Québec, on the bench of the Supreme Court). All of our honourable justices are required to reside, per section 8 of the same Act, within forty kilometres of the National Capital Region once appointed.

Currently SCOC holds liberal positions when it comes to Charter, minority rights etc. If only bilingual justices are appointed, that will continue, I don't see anything changing.

The positions of the Supreme Court are neither liberal, nor conservative; they are simply a reflection of the precedents that we, as a nation, have built upon the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 and the unwritten portions of our constitution. The Court’s positions on minority rights and the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not what they are due to a liberal position, but rather because these decisions are the natural progression of existing precedents and past decisions, in respect of fundamental rights and freedoms and our constitutional framework.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry to refute your statement, SirJosephPorter, but prime ministers maintaing a regional balance is by convention and political courtesy only; the only regional requirement for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, per section 6 of the Supreme Court Act, is that three of our honourable justices be appointed from the Province of Québec (this is so that there will always be a solid understanding of civil law, used only in Québec, on the bench of the Supreme Court). All of our honourable justices are required to reside, per section 8 of the same Act, within forty kilometres of the National Capital Region once appointed.

I did not know that. I knew they maintained regional balance in SCOC, I didn’t know it was a tradition, rather than the law. Either way, you may rest assured that PMs will maintain the regional balance, even if the bilingual law is passed.

The positions of the Supreme Court are neither liberal, nor conservative; they are simply a reflection of the precedents that we, as a nation, have built upon the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 and the unwritten portions of our constitution. The Court’s positions on minority rights and the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not what they are due to a liberal position, but rather because these decisions are the natural progression of existing precedents and past decisions, in respect of fundamental rights and freedoms and our constitutional framework.

I quite agree. SCOC justices do not take liberal or conservative positions (at least I hope not, we don’t want politicization of our Supreme Court, as has happened in USA). At the same time, one can judge as to where the current consensus of SCOC lies on the political spectrum. Currently it lies with the liberal position (high regard for the Charter, accommodating minority rights, religious rights wherever possible without coming into conflict with the Charter etc.).

It is not a secret that liberals are more in agreement with SCOC decisions than conservatives (legalization of gay marriage, striking down of abortion law, letting Sikh kids carry kirpan etc.). So if only bilingual lawyers are appointed to SCOC, chances are that new appointees will be in sync with the current philosophy of SCOC and nothing will have changed.

While SCOC justices interpret the constitution without regard to whether they come down on liberal or conservative side, we are entitled to judge what side they come down on.

 

[Spade]

Good lord! There are only 9 justices on the Supreme Court of Canada. There are enough legal minds from across Canada bright enough to master both French and English!

 

[CDNBear]

Good lord! There are only 9 justices on the Supreme Court of Canada. There are enough legal minds from across Canada bright enough to master both French and English!

Agreed, which is why making bilingualism a prerequisite is ridiculous.

 

[Machjo]

Relying completely on a failure in the system is a weak excuse for not learning. I'm not going to school to learn my native language and I am funding it myself. If I fail, it is my own fault but I am still a little better than I was before I started. If I succeed, I have a 100% success rate, unlike the system and in spite of the system.

I agree to a degree. I'd learnt many language skills outside of school.

However, when it comes to the Government adopting a second-language teaching policy that ensures that the vast majority will succeed in learning a common second language to fluency before th end of their compulsory education to ensure efficient communication at the national level, that is the government's responsibility. On that front, the need for this Bill highlights the failure of Provincial Ministries of Education.

 

[Machjo]

Or to put it another way, AnnaG, if I speak 5 languages and you speak 5 languages, but there's still no common language between us, that's not our issue (no one has the time to learn 50 languages), that's the government's responsibility, and it falls on the shoulders of Provincial Ministries of Education to develop a second-language teaching policy that could ensure all Canadians can speak a common language fluently, even if it's only a common second language. They have failed miserably on that front, as national statistics on both sides of the language divide prove.

 

[Machjo]

There is no correlation between Justice and language, in Canada. We have a huge immigrant population, that can and do receive fair trials in many jurisdictions, with the aid of interpreters.

And that's expensive too. Immigrants ought to be expected to know the local language before setting foot on Canadian soil so as to save money on interpretation and translation at all levels of government, including 911 emergency phone lines, police departments, hospitals, paramedics, etc. etc. etc. The money quickly adds up.

 

[Machjo]

As i mentioned before, a compromise could be reached. The new appointee to SCOC could be given one or two years to become fluent in French (or in English, as the case may be).

What we were dealing with here was not people who could not speak this or that language, but rather those who simply couldn't speak any language. The same with hearing. In such cases, certainly LSQ and ASL might be required sign languages to know to compensate. I suppose I could see this as an alternative:

Must know written French and English, and
Must now either spoken French and English or ASL and LSQ, depending on the ability to speak and hear.

This would even prove beneficial in court cases involving a deaf person for instance.

 

[CDNBear]

And that's expensive too. Immigrants ought to be expected to know the local language before setting foot on Canadian soil so as to save money on interpretation and translation at all levels of government, including 911 emergency phone lines, police departments, hospitals, paramedics, etc. etc. etc. The money quickly adds up.

Although I am a stalwart proponent of being fluent in at least one of the official languages to become a citizen.

There are many intricacies involving law, in which one should not be considered fluent. This is compounded by my steadfast belief in a fair trial. Both making a translator a justifiable cost in my books.

 

[Machjo]

I should also add that the costs of immigrants who do not know the local language are not limited to government departments and emergency services. companies end up being burdened by these costs too. In the end, they permeate the economy.

But again, fundamentally this is a failure of the provincial ministries of education.

 

[CDNBear]

I should also add that the costs of immigrants who do not know the local language are not limited to government departments and emergency services. companies end up being burdened by these costs too. In the end, they permeate the economy.

But again, fundamentally this is a failure of the provincial ministries of education.

I agree on all accounts, except for the who.

Immigration is a Federal policy, making sure those they allow in adhere to and adjust to Canadian culture and language, is their responsibility.