[Brenda]

$1:

It's those lawyers that eventually become the SCC candidates.

Isn't that the perfect time to take on a French/English course?

[c2shinysea]

Brenda, the perfect time to get someone bilingual is starting under the age of 5. As a 20something student, they may learn enough French/English to be fluent but they will never be bilingual. I spent 1600 hours learning French at RMC, I still wouldn't trust my ability to understand any regional vernacular of the language.

My point is that even as a first year law student, no one has a crystal ball that can foretell the career of those students. Why waste the resources on language training for a kid that is going into legal research or ends up a labour negotiator? So if we truly want bilingual lawyers that become SCC Justices, we need to step up our game at the primary school level and insist that every citizen be bilingual (somehow can't quite see that going over well in certain regions or specific language communities). However, I can see a slippery slope argument being made by interest groups for all trials to be conducted in the language of the accused - are they too not Canadians? would be the premise.

[Brenda]

$1:

Brenda, the perfect time to get someone bilingual is starting under the age of 5.

Nonsense.

My point is that apparently, Canada has a double standard when it comes to its 2 official languages. It's not mandatory for anyone, unless you are in high placed positions, or a telemarketer. I don't get that. I was taught 4 languages during my school years, and I don't see why in a country with 2 official languages, it cannot be made mandatory for everyone to speak at least 2 languages.

It's either that, or cut the bilingual bullshit.

[Bodah]

c2shinysea c2shinysea:

My point is that even as a first year law student, no one has a crystal ball that can foretell the career of those students. Why waste the resources on language training for a kid that is going into legal research or ends up a labour negotiator? So if we truly want bilingual lawyers that become SCC Justices, we need to step up our game at the primary school level and insist that every citizen be bilingual (somehow can't quite see that going over well in certain regions or specific language communities). However, I can see a slippery slope argument being made by interest groups for all trials to be conducted in the language of the accused - are they too not Canadians? would be the premise.

Spot on !

Your just not going to get the best judges simple as that. Do we want a strong Supreme Court or do you want bilingual judges from Quebec dominating the supreme court. Alot of Quebecers leave the province.

This isn't what the beloved Pierre Trudeau peace be upon him had in mind when it came to bilingualism. Minority dictating to the majority who gets the important jobs.

[Bodah]

$1:

Sign up to fight unilinguaphobia!Mark Steyn

After two years, my campaign to rid the nation of its “human rights” commissions doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. So, in a spirit of rapprochement, let me try a new tack. Given that there seems to be insufficient actionable racism, sexism, homophobia and Islamophobia to justify the budgets of the “human rights” regime, how about a new ground for complaint?
Unilinguaphobia.

As we know, every job that matters in Canada is bilingual, from her viceregal eminence in Rideau Hall down to the village postmistress in Pakenham, Ont. The House of Commons has just passed, all but unnoticed, a bill requiring that henceforth all Supreme Court justices should be able to hear cases in English and French without the aid of an interpreter. That’s to say, it’s not enough to be a distinguished jurist capable of a little light banter with a francophone colleague or a discussion of Denys Arcand’s oeuvre at a Canada Council cocktail party: you have to be able to understand highly technical legalisms in a language other than your own, unaided. As things stand, three of the nine judges have to come from Quebec. If the new bill takes effect, it’s hard to imagine any jurist west of Ontario ever meeting the qualifications.


As the Ottawa Citizen’s Dan Gardner recently pointed out (full disclosure: he thinks I’m an alarmist buffoon, so he’s obviously a reliable source), a rip-roaring total of 9.4 per cent of Canadian anglophones are bilingual. This was, of course, M. Trudeau’s great insight when he presided over the expansion of official bilingualism from the very modest provisions of the British North America Act: as the minority, francophones would have the greater incentive to learn the other language, and thus, being overrepresented among the bilingual labour pool, would increase their presence at the highest levels of Canadian life. Yet, even among francophones, only 42 per cent are bilingual.

By the way, these aren’t ready-for-my-Supreme-Court-oral-argument-now bilinguals. These are self-identified polyglots, the overwhelming majority of whom rest their claims to bilingualism on their ability to go into a restaurant in Trois-Rivières and order a café au lait and a croissant. And, if the waiter returns with a Dr Pepper and poutine à l’italienne, hey, close enough.

But, putting that aside, what those numbers mean in practice is that about 83 per cent of Canadians are ineligible for Canada’s most prominent jobs. In America, anyone can grow up to be president. In Canada, only eligible members of the House of Windsor can grow up to be queen. But, given those restrictive entry requirements, it seems perverse that over four-fifths of Canadians can never grow up even to be governor general.

Ah, well, you say, that’s the highest office in the land: is it unreasonable to require that those who reach for such heights do so with a foot on both rungs of the linguistic ladder?

Okay, but go back to that village post office in Pakenham, Ont. Pakenham is in the municipality of Mississippi Mills, but for Canada Post purposes it falls within the “National Capital Region” and therefore has to have bilingual postmasters, even though it’s a unilingual English village. Mississippi Mills has about 11,000 anglophones and 500 francophones, and, given that the sub-jurisdiction has around 500 folks and operating on the assumption of a population distribution not significantly different from the municipality as a whole, Pakenham would have approx 478 anglos and 22 francophones. The acting postmistress, Jeanne Barr, said the only people who ever came in to buy stamps in French were undercover agents from the linguistic division of Canada Post. “They always do the same thing. They want two stamps,” she told the Ottawa Citizen. Nevertheless, in December Ms. Barr was replaced as postmistress because of insufficient French, and offered a choice as a “rover” filling in for sick time and holidays at post offices within a 50-km radius or transferring to Kinburn and taking a 20-hour-a-week job as a rural-route mail deliverer. Ms. Barr went to the media, kicked up a fuss, and got her termination put on hold—for now. At nearby Almonte, another unilingual postmistress kept her head down and found herself, in the Ottawa Sun’s words, “relegated to a backroom assignment.” In a 96 per cent anglophone community, an anglophone postal worker cannot be permitted to interact with the public.

Try this thought experiment. Let’s say you’re black or gay or Muslim and you apply for a job with a private company—Maclean’s, say, or Mark Steyn Global Megacorp Inc. And I say, “Okay, we’ll put you on the payroll, but you’ll have to work in the backroom. Nothing personal, but I’d rather you weren’t seen by the customers.” I might have compelling commercial reasons for so doing: frankly, you’re a bit of a limp-wristed queen, and I’m in the macho sporting-goods business. But you’d reject that argument with a toss of your curls and flounce off to the “human rights” commission. And they’d reject it, too, and nail my homophobic ass to the wall.

And that’s not even the right analogy: what’s happening in Pakenham is like me owning a store in Montreal’s Gay Village and still relegating you to the backroom. In Almonte, the downgraded postmistress is the non-visible majority. In the Racism Awareness classes, you’re taught to keep an eye out for signs that the boss prefers to keep you at the back of the store. Yet what’s Racism 101 in the ethnic grievance business is government policy at Canada Post.

Why? If the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission recognized unilinguaphobia as a ground for complaint, Canada Post would have to demonstrate some kind of compelling rationale for why a unilingual village could not have a unilingual postmistress. They can’t make that case. But they don’t have to because they’re a government bureaucracy. Despite the best efforts of the CHRC and self-appointed Hatefinder-General Richard Warman, there is very little systemic discrimination in Canada. Except by the Canadian state against 83 per cent of Canadians.

After 40 years of coercive bilingualism, Canada is no more a bilingual society than it was before: it remains, overwhelmingly, two unilingual societies with a bilingual governing regime. If you take the reductive view of most statists, then being able to get service in two languages after standing in line for three hours at the Department of Regulatory Paperwork is a tremendous accomplishment. But out in the real world life goes on: I was dining with a friend, une chanteuse québécoise, in Montreal the other evening, and a couple of fans from adjoining tables came up and expressed their admiration for her, very graciously, but nevertheless leading me to ask sotto voce whether she didn’t find it all a bit of a pain. “Oh, you know the old joke, Mark,” she said. “If a francophone celebrity wants to live in total anonymity, all she has to do is move to Westmount.” As true (truer?) now than ever.

Still, if federal bilingualism has done nothing to bring Canadians together, it’s done a grand job of separating them from their governing class. Lots of developed nations have Big Government, alas, but only Canada has Big Government from which most of the governed are excluded. You’re a brilliant jurist from Alberta, but you’ll never be on the Supreme Court now because at 58 your French doesn’t extend beyond “Bonjour, monsewer. Où est la toilette, s’il vous plaît?” You’re an incisive military strategist who made tough decisions in Kandahar, but you’re ineligible for the Chiefs of Staff. So who gets the job instead?

In theory, anyone can learn a language. But, if you’re in Buckinghorse River or Lac St-Jean and had no reason to and were growing your business, it’s hard to start in late middle age. So Canada’s plum public-sector gigs go to members of the bilingual permanent administrative elite. Do they represent the full (oh, what’s the word?) diversity of this great land? Or is their government bilingualism perhaps reflective of a broader acquiescence to certain pieties? To be sure, it’s not a formally closed class; it allows for social mobility and entry into its ranks. But then so did the House of Lords. And, as the working and mercantile classes did with the 19th-century aristocracy, Canada’s unilingual masses seem to have accepted rule by their bilingual betters. This is not healthy. It is an affront to basic precepts of self-government, and, like so many other statist initiatives, cruel and capricious—as those postmistresses in unilingual villages well know.

So fight unilinguaphobia. And, if you lose at the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, take it to the Supreme Court. But make sure you get there before the enforced bilingual bench takes over . . .

[Unsound]

[c2shinysea]

I think, that the definition of bilingualism is what causes most teeth gnashing and hand wringing. Now my linguistic professors who had the task of turning us into plausible French speakers, always maintained that while we might become fluent in French we would never be bilingual. Their definition (linguists that is) of bilingualism is being able to think, speak, write and read in each language *without* telltale signs of the other language being heard or influencing the speech pattern.

Brenda, the key in your statement is that you learned to speak languages while at school. Most of our school boards can't get it together to decide at what age do our kids need to start learning both languages. Some jurisdictions don't start until grade 4, others start in kindergarten, some not until grade 7. If you follow the model that most linguists support that speech is best learned as child, then targeting under 5 year old isn't as nonsense as you suggest.

I too, speak several languages but only two of them are considered to be a purist form of bilingualism. Both of those languages were introduced to me simultaneously as a child and I have no trace of an accent in either language - in linguistic terms they are considered equalingual. I think in both languages without the other language influencing the pattern of the other, which is what linguist look for to determine bi/multilingualism.

Now, I've heard both Franco and Anglophones that have had language training and nothing will convince me that either speaker is nothing more than just fluent with bad accents. They can understand and be understood without too much repetition for the listener. But they are no way bilingual - you can hear the influences of the other language in their speech. This is the speaker one will get for a SCC Justice. If we truly require a bilingual Justice that can operate in both languages to the high level the Bill is going to require, then we'd better start the babies born this year in their language training just in case they want to go to law school and aspire to be Chief Justice.

Anyway, my dollar and half worth.

[Brenda]

I'm only talking from experience, thats all. Sorry that I am not linguistically as educated as you are

[Brenda]

In addition, btw, and I said it before, either start teaching both languages when you start school, or cut the bilingual crap.

[MacDonaill]

It is such horse manure to hear this rhetorical lamentation against bilingualism. Judging by many of the posts here, one would think French is so impossible to learn unless you're a little kid. Wrong. Like any worthwhile activity, learning a new language takes some work, practice and dedication. I think that's the least we can ask of people in the public service' ESPECIALLY in the National Capital.

In any case, if you live in this country and can't speak a word of French, it's your own darn fault, because there is certainly no shortage of learning opportunities. Kids start in primary school and because of their laziness and that of their parents, will not commit themselves to French class the way they will to other subjects. Why? The answer is only typical of English-speaking people the world over. 'Why should we have to learn another language when everyone already speaks English?'

I'm as fed up with Quebec's whining as the next guy, but that is a completely different issue. The capacity of the federal government to be able to communicate in both languages is essential. The fact that so many of you speak so glibly about this nation's birthplace being removed from the country only because you're terrified that one day you or your children (whom you laud invariably as being so 'gifted' and 'brilliant' each one) might actually have to learn a second language if they want to become Prime Minister or a Supreme Court justice, is simply stupefying.

As for the article itself, once again Steyn proves himself to be the philistine that he really is, with a completely unimportant piece of trash which neither says nor contributes a single idea which hasn't already appeared somewhere else.

Most Canadians are kept out of government jobs by bilingual requirements? I'd say most Canadians don't know anything about their government in the first place, so why should they be worried about whether or not they can work for it? They're too busy watching 'Lost' and imagining that they occupy a place in an American culture that only has enough consideration for them to occasionally make fun of them using the same stupid jokes every time.

[MacDonaill]

In any case, no matter how many judges on the court understand French, there is no such thing as a truly bilingual institution or working environment. The working language of the court will always be English, because all it takes is one person who doesn't understand French and everyone will be obliged to switch to English.

[Brenda]

$1:

'Why should we have to learn another language when everyone already speaks English?'

Gotta love the arrogance, huh?

[Bodah]

Hey Mac,

What's your views on trilingualism ? Aren't native dialects in this country worth preserving as well ? Aren't they in more danger of disappearing than the french language ? Were they not part of the founding people of Canada ?

[BeaverFever]

c2shinysea c2shinysea:

BF, the small flaw in your argument is that you have restricted the language issue to just French. In Government services, any speaker of either official language should be accommodated. In the Courts, it's simply not going to fly. Accused/defendants come in all linguistic profiles and to cater to each (which each jurisdiction would be responsible for - section 91/92 give the admin of justice to the Provinces)and every one by conducting entire trials in the accused's language would be expensive and a logistical nightmare not to mention ignoring the legal tenet of a trial by one's peers - it's not a case of arraying a jury that are just speaker's of the accused's language - that in and of itself is not an array - most jurisdictions do not have that level of detail of from it's jury lists (names are usually taken from tax rolls and election info).

I'm not talking about every language, I'm talking about French because first, it has special privelages and protections in the Constitution generally and because it a native language of Canada, unlike any other languge except Aboriginals. One could argue that on such grounds, Aboriginal language should also be accommodated but that is not in the Constitution and would be hard to accommodate given the diversity of aboriginal languages and the relatively small populations who speak them (let alone speak them exclusively).

$1:

Now, while I recognize that this topic is about the SCC, every judge starts off as a first year law student, no one knows at that moment whether they will become a jurist or an advocate - most students don't even make it past the Bar Exams. Where does this Bill afford for the early language training - as a just in case that kid who sat in the back row during Contracts from Beaver Creek YT becomes the future Chief Justice of the SCC?

Second, we're talking about the SCC, not any other level of court. It does not follow that the requirements of the former be the same as the latter. To my knowledge, there is some mandatory French in most provincial school systems, and voluntary French at almost every grade level. The Federal govt also has all kinds of programs and grants for youth and public servants to learn French.

$1:

I note that the two way street doesn't go towards Francophone justices being able to operate in English if required. Better yet, why are we still operating with a two pronged justice system? As a lawyer, trained in a common law jurisdiction, I can't even think about practising in Quebec because I didn't take the extra year to study the Civil Code. Language has nothing to do with that. Where does this Bill allow for the need for all lawyers to be able to practise in all Canadian jurisdictions? It's those lawyers that eventually become the SCC candidates.

Is there a shortage of English speaking justices in Canada? As I understand it, they want more bilingual judges, not uni-lingual judges. Don't confuse that as some policy that only forces Anglophones to learn French. So whats the problem? If you want to practice in Quebec, take the extra year. If you want to increase your chances of becoming a SC justice, learn French. Go the extra mile to differentiate yourself from your peers and prove you deserve to sit in the highest and most presitgious level of our judicial system. Earn it, its not an entitlement.

[MacDonaill]

Bodah Bodah:

Hey Mac,

What's your views on trilingualism ? Aren't native dialects in this country worth preserving as well ? Aren't they in more danger of disappearing than the french language ?

If you're asking whether I would support official trilingualism, the answer would be no. First off, native tribes all speak different languages, so I don't see how including them would make Canada tri-lingual; we might end up with 20 official languages before we're done.

Secondly, with rare exceptions, most natives have a better comprehension of English or French then their ancestral tongues.

Thirdly, French as an official language in the Federal government has little to do with its preservation. It's a practical measure to ensure the Federal government retains legitimacy amongst francophone Canadians. French-Canadians, especially those in Quebec, would have no reason or inclination to follow laws passed by a Fed that doesn't speak a word of French.