SCOC - Appointees must be bilingual? Good or Bad Law

[FiveParadox]

Bilingual Justices on the Supreme Court

It makes perfect sense for our honourable justices of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual.

Though the resources do exist to translate testimony from one language to the other and vice-versa, let’s not forget that there are nuances that — for both languages — simply cannot be translated, expressed or understood in the other. I have no doubt that there are cases that could have their potential decisions influenced, one way or the other, by these nuances (which would be lost on a number of our justices, notwithstanding the exemplary translation services available).

Nonetheless, I cannot support the bill in its present form because it would make it possible, in my view, to close the door on Supreme Court appointments to Canadians who are hard-of-hearing or deaf. The Act would need to make it clear, in my view, that an understanding of the written language exclusively would also satisfy the requirements for appointment to the bench. It is an unlikely issue to be brought forward, of course, but it is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to vet its bills for these possible constitutional issues and address them before their passage (as the House of Commons has seemingly failed to do in this case).

I have sent an e-mail to Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Government in the Senate and Minister of State for Seniors, Senator the Honourable Céline Hervieux-Payette P.C. (Bedford), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Senate, and the honourable senators representing British Columbia (on both sides of the aisle), to alert them of this issue and to express my wish that they work together to pass an appropriate amendment that the Commons might find palatable.

 

[Machjo]

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.

 

[Colpy]

It makes perfect sense for our honourable justices of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual.

Though the resources do exist to translate testimony from one language to the other and vice-versa, let’s not forget that there are nuances that — for both languages — simply cannot be translated, expressed or understood in the other. I have no doubt that there are cases that could have their potential decisions influenced, one way or the other, by these nuances (which would be lost on a number of our justices, notwithstanding the exemplary translation services available).

Nonetheless, I cannot support the bill in its present form because it would make it possible, in my view, to close the door on Supreme Court appointments to Canadians who are hard-of-hearing or deaf. The Act would need to make it clear, in my view, that an understanding of the written language exclusively would also satisfy the requirements for appointment to the bench. It is an unlikely issue to be brought forward, of course, but it is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to vet its bills for these possible constitutional issues and address them before their passage (as the House of Commons has seemingly failed to do in this case).

I have sent an e-mail to Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Government in the Senate and Minister of State for Seniors, Senator the Honourable Céline Hervieux-Payette P.C. (Bedford), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Senate, and the honourable senators representing British Columbia (on both sides of the aisle), to alert them of this issue and to express my wish that they work together to pass an appropriate amendment that the Commons might find palatable.

My guess is that about 65% of the legal profession in this country is unilingual.

To exclude those from the highest court in the land is simply not on. It is an outrage, stupidity in its highest form.

First of all, it sharply reduces the pool of talent from which justices can be picked.

Secondly, there is the point that those who are bilingual are very likely to come from one part of the country, the centre.....and that is unacceptable.....Yes, they will still be able to find a justice from west of Ontario that is bilingual....but talk about a tiny pool of talent!

Thirdly, and most importantly, this is a blow struck in favour of a certain class.....those individuals who are bilingual in this society have a tendency to share certain cultural beliefs that are not universal in the nation.....in fact, are not even held by the majority. By forcing the court to be composed only of those who accept certain cultural norms.....such as the necessity of bilingualism itself in our elite.....you remove the court one giant step from the people........you radically change the constitutional essence of what this nation was meant to be.......it is absolutely outrageous.

Absolute, gross stupidity of the worst kind........I am literally shocked and appalled.

This must never be proclaimed.

Full stop.

If I were the Conservatives, I'd scream bloody blue murder, and threaten an election over it. And how divisive would that Be???

Ludicrous.

 

[FiveParadox]

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).

 

[FiveParadox]

Also, it would be highly inappropriate for the prime minister to threaten the dissolution of Parliament over a piece of private member’s business that is now resting in the Senate; to do so would come dangerously close to suggesting that the Government is also responsible to the Upper House (since the Senate would essentially have the power to vote down the Government through the passage of a bill before it). It would be highly irregular under our constitutional framework for the Senate to wield that sort of power normally reserved exclusively to the House of Commons (mind you, the prime minister has attempted to grant that power to the Senate on a previous occasion).

 

[AnnaG]

SCOC - Appointees must be bilingual? Good or Bad LawI agree with the view expressed below - What is your opinion?

Legal community divided over bilingualism on Supreme Court

Although I think it is generally a good thing to know as many languages as one can, this seems to be a limiting factor on hiring judges due to judicial ability because of an extraneous issue. Harper, of all people, can make himself understood in French now. Besides that, don't judges have expert advice on other issues in court proceedings? Why can't they have expert translators until they become fluent? What happens when someone appears before a judge who speaks only Viareggino, Jiao Liao Mandarin, or something?

It's both a good law and a bad law. Had provincial ministries of education done a good job of ensuring that all Canadians complete their compulsory education fluently bilingual in at least one common second language known to all Canadians, then we would not need this law.

Looking at it that way, the need for the law is essentially an acknowledgement that ministries of education across Canada have failed in their duties.

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.

Supreme Court appointees must be bilingual to hear and understand the nuances of testimony in both official languages.

As I mentioned, aren't there experts for judges to rely on? Do they have to understand all the medical aspects of a malpractise suit to determine culpability or do they rely on medical experts?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think the requirement to be "fluently bilingual" is wrong. The federal government has detailed definitions of what "fluently bilingual" means, specified in terms of reading, writing, and oral comprehension and expression, and I spent enough time as a federal public servant to have formed the opinion that the requirements are ludicrous and heavily biased in favour of people whose first language is French. I've seen dozens of people go through French language training at taxpayers' expense, and it's the spoken oral part that's the killer. Reading and writing are relatively simple, almost everybody passes those the first time. Oral comprehension is a little more difficult, because native French speakers tend to speak much faster than native English speakers, but most people pass that requirement as well in no more than two tries. It's the spoken French where they fail repeatedly. If your first language is English, the standards are impossibly high, the examiners want to hear you speak in unaccented, perfect upper class Montreal French with a 10,000 word vocabulary. If your first language is French, you can pass speaking English with an almost incomprehensible French accent and a 1000 word vocabulary.

And for Supreme Court justices, surely it's the reading and writing that matter most.

 

[Nuggler]

What Dexter Said;

AND: It's just another case of attempting to have the tail wag the dog.

The UN, (mostly useless), relies on instant translation, and it holds forth on such trivia as nuclear war and the like, so the translation better be good.

So, what the Pequistes are saying is that instant translation a la UN is not good enough for a supreme court justice.

BULLSHYT!! Just another divisive wedge for Canada.:angryfire:

We Anglais will soon be strangers in our own country.

 

[Spade]

Spade

While excluding a significant majority of lawyers - reducing the pool to NB - Ont and Que - They already have the resources to explain the nuances as you mention - Is abilty to be trumped by bilingual ability -

Nonsense, Goober!
Are you saying in your neighbourhood, in Riviere Qui Barre, Morinville, Callahoo, Bob Accord, Saint Albert, and on the military base and so on there are no bilingual Canadians of ability? There are thousands of people right where you live, of all ethnic origins, who are fluent in both official languages. Time for you to get out and rub some shoulders!
Cheers!
Cousin Spade

 

[Kreskin]

Maybe it's unconstitutional.

 

[Spade]

Bilingualism on the bench is justice served

 

[CDNBear]

Bilingualism on the bench is justice served

I love OpEd pieces based on imagination...:roll:

 

[Goober]

Nonsense, Goober!
Are you saying in your neighbourhood, in Riviere Qui Barre, Morinville, Callahoo, Bob Accord, Saint Albert, and on the military base and so on there are no bilingual Canadians of ability? There are thousands of people right where you live, of all ethnic origins, who are fluent in both official languages. Time for you to get out and rub some shoulders!
Cheers!
Cousin Spade

Cousin Spade

No I am not saying that. The vast majority of fluently bilingual lawyers are located in those 3 provinces

As we are all aware when a Govt is elected the PM appoints Cabinet Ministers based upon qualification (hopefully) but also just as important upon region. That’s is done to ensure that each region within the country has a voice at the table.

The SCOC is the same way - Reports when the latest SCOC Justice to announce his retirement brought that again to the table with BC being one of the provinces that either has not or has not in quite some time had a Justice on the SCOC

Presentations to the SCOC
Both English and French have equal weight in rulings by the SCOC - One is not superior to the other
All documentation is provided first and translations are done - I have yet to hear of any lawyers stating that the SCOC upon making a ruling made errors in their translations of their ruling -

The SCOC hears oral arguments from both sides - The translations for this I am sure are quite rigorous - and you can rest assured that they would pick up on any errors made -

If the SCOC made any errors based upon translation that would be the basis for an appeal to the same SCOC because or errors in law

The SCOC takes their own sweet time (which can be trying at best for some) - Pun -to review past precedents in Canadian Law, International Law, and rulings made in other countries, points of Law brought forward by all appellants as a number of persons can appeal to be heard on a certain case before the SCOC

They know the impact that their ruling will have and so give it the time and consideration that is required.

Yes we have Lawyers west of Ontario that would meet the Bilingual qualification - But setting that aside would they be the best Jurist for the SCOC -

I am of the belief that because the Justices of SCOC are appointed from all regions - just the way it is and it will not change in Canada - we would be then lowering the quality line -

We have as yet to appoint a First Nations person to the SCOC - reason - Limited numbers that started practicing law 20 to 30 years ago - but as time progresses more First Nations persons will become Lawyers and that self same pool widens along with the talent base

Reason I mention First Nations - For the last vacancy on the court this was brought forward - next - They are one of the founding Nations of this country

So being such should the SCOC have a firm grounding and knowledge of First Nations traditions and history.

None that are on the SCOC have that qualification that I am aware of but they rule on a substantial number of First Nations claims against the Govt.

Yet the SCOC relies on experts and legal arguments - all translated -

Lastly - I would not want to be a translator that makes errors that are present to one Justice only to be torn apart by another when they discuss the case before them -

 

[JLM]

Supreme Court appointees must be bilingual to hear and understand the nuances of testimony in both official languages.

Welcome back Spade, complete with your sound logic.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

Having lived in Quebec for many years, I can say with all certainty, there is no guarantee of Justice, because a Jurist can speak French.

 

[AnnaG]

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.

Having lived in Quebec for many years, I can say with all certainty, there is no guarantee of Justice, because a Jurist can speak French.

That, too.

 

[JLM]

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.

Having lived in Quebec for many years, I can say with all certainty, there is no guarantee of Justice, because a Jurist can speak French.

I hear you Bear, I just thought it would be more beneficial if they could speak French than if they couldn't.

 

[CDNBear]

I hear you Bear, I just thought it would be more beneficial if they could speak French than if they couldn't.

I agree, it would be, don't get me wrong. But to make it a requirement on the basis of equality, is a tad absurd.

There are literally thousands of Judges across the country that can speak but one language. That are still capable of metering out justice, in a myriad of languages.

I hate using my imagination, but since Spade opened the door...

Since the Supreme Court is where most Native disputes end up. I could just as easily say all Supreme Court Justices be fluent in all the Native languages of Canada. of course that's just plainly absurd.

 

[gerryh]

I agree, it would be, don't get me wrong. But to make it a requirement on the basis of equality, is a tad absurd.

There are literally Judges across the country that can speak but one language. That are still capable of metering out justice, in a myriad of languages.

I hate using my imagination, but since Spade opened the door...

Since the Supreme Court is where most Native disputes end up. I could just as easily say all Supreme Court Justices be fluent in all the Native languages of Canada. of course that's just plainly absurd.

of course it's obsurd. Being fluent, in what are basically dead languages, would be beyond absurd.

Canada has 2 official languages, neither of which are "injun". It is far from unreasonable to expect those that are sitting on the SCOC, dispensing the "end of the line" justice, to be fluent in both official languages.

 

[CDNBear]

of course it's obsurd. Being fluent, in what are basically dead languages, would be beyond absurd.

Canada has 2 official languages, neither of which are "injun". It is far from unreasonable to expect those that are sitting on the SCOC, dispensing the "end of the line" justice, to be fluent in both official languages.

I'm sorry, could you please point to where I said it was unreasonable.