[Proculation]

But you have to understand it's from the BNAA of 1867 and was modified after to add the West. You have to remember Quebec was the biggest/more populated Province in that time.

[saturn_656]

Proculation Proculation:

The law says 3 from Quebec, 3 from Ontario, 1 from Maritimes and 2 from the West.

I stand corrected but anyway, it's still no more than 3 from Quebec.

I know that is what wikipedia says, but the only reference I can find in the Supreme Court Act regarding designated seats for provinces is at least three for Quebec.

I cannot find guaranteed seats for any other province in the act.

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

[BeaverFever]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Haven't you heard of some of the insane verdicts judges render in this country? I know there are some seemingly not playing with a full deck, I know there are some that I would be horrified to have as part of the Supreme Court.

What I am saying is that the best judges should be considered for the job, not the best bilingual judges.

Yeah but what standard do you use to determine "the best"? Surely there are "bad" judges, but IMO alot of the talk about "insane verdicts" is really overblown. Judges have to interpret the law, in addition to applying it. When rendering their decisions, they often have to take factors into consideration that the average Joe Blow on the street isn't even aware of, let alone understand. For example, what kind of precedent the decision might set and what kind of precedent has already been set.

Sometimes the people are outraged when a criminal gets off easy but if the evidence was mishandled or there was an abuse of power or authority, the Judge may feel they have no choice, even if they think the accused "deserves" worse. We will call that insance, but often its just professionalism.

Of course there are bad apples in any bunch and there are probably judges that are too 'soft' judges, judges that are too 'tough,' judges with personal biases and old judges who maybe just don't give a shit anymore. But I think those types aren't likely to glide into the Supreme Court just because they can speak French.

[Benn]

Focusing on the case that brought this to the news again however, before we even get into the debate on who should have learned French or English, the guys argument in this case was the translation was bad and it would not have been if the Judge wqas bilingual. The argument is weak to faulty since there is no way to say that the judge would have interpreted what he said any better than the translator did, in fact I'd argue that people who are translators would know better how to translate then a lay bilingual person would, they know the law better because they are judges, translators know translation better because that's their job. Beyond that there is still the transcript that can be looked at to see if the translator goofed or not. I doubt it though as I am sure they make sure they get top notch translators for the SCC considering the level of words being used and the cost of making mistakes.

Even if I were fluent I'd still want a translator in a case where someone's freedom hangs on my understanding. Just because one knows a second language (even at a Government E "Exemption" level) does not mean they are an expert in that language.

So perhaps if translators are better than a lay knowledge of a second tongue then they should be used, in fact mandatory to use, in which case knowing any of the other language is not even required if there are translators anyhow.

[Proculation]

There's only one non-bilingual judge in the SC now. It's not like only the judges from Quebec are bilingual

[kenmore]

Absolutely justices of the supreme court should be bilingual...

http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/08/11/shoul ... bilingual/

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

Not only do we demand it for the highest placed Canadians, but also for our airline crew, border guards, telemarketers... So please, what is the deal? Go to school, learn French, we all can do it.

Airline crews only need to know the French for the on/off button to the audio player that tells me how to buckle up in French.

[Tman1]

Canada is not a bilingual country. It has two 'official languages' but it is not a bilingual country and is a constant misconception with this country I can't stress enough. Being called a bilingual country would require a majority if not all to speak both languages. Sorry, most do not. If you want to be bilingual, keep it in the East please.

[Unsound]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

In an officially bilingual country, I just kind of expect people at the highest levels of our federal government and judicial system to be bilingual, or at least that there will be sufficient numbers of bilingual people such that a lack of bilingualism will not ever be an issue. Westerners can study French too, unless they're inbred, they probably don't have a genetic disadvantage in this area.

I also expect that somebody who makes the exta effort to master a second language in addition to mastering the law or whatever area of occupational expertise should indeed be rewarded and considered superior to their peers who didn't bother to make that effort.

While westerners certainly can study french, but to achieve the kind of fluency that would allow them to dispense with translators takes a lot more than just studying. It takes being surrounded by the language. This is why people who live in a more bilingual part of the country, ie the east, are much more likely to be fluently bilingual.

And even should one become proficient enough to pass whatever tests they decide are neccesary to prove you're "bilingual enough" people will always be more comfortable in one than the other, and considering the stakes in a supreme court case will most likely still want to see a translation in order to be sure they have things right.

[Tman1]

Brenda Brenda:

Not only do we demand it for the highest placed Canadians, but also for our airline crew, border guards, telemarketers... So please, what is the deal? Go to school, learn French, we all can do it.

Its called demographics and when you consider that 0.1% of the population in a particular area speaks french out of millions of english speakers, its pretty pointless and a waste of money but yeah because Canada was built upon the foundations of both languages it apparently outweighs the fact that most people in this country don't speak french belies its benefits to speak both languages simply to appease a minority.

[BeaverFever]

There's also an expectation that one shouldn't have to go through a translator to access their own government and judiciary. If you went to go get a passport or a SIN card and the agent on the phone/over the counter only spoke French and you had to deal through a translator, you'd be pissed. And the highest court in the land is a little more important than that.

Also, the government has a pretty thorough and formal system of assessing and testing langauge capability. It also has a pretty good system of teaching French and English as a second langauge for government personnel, Stephen Harper is a pretty good example, as already mentioned.

[c2shinysea]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and try and explain what the meaning of bilingual in the Courts really means.

A defendant/accused has the right to be tried in the language of their choice. This means that a court certified translator will be provided to the accused/defendant for their benefit. It does not mean that the entire trial/hearing will be conducted in the accused/defendant's language. There is no distinction of what language is provided for - period. If the accused/defendant is a Francophone charged with an offence outside of an area where French is not spoken, then he/she will be provided a translator for the court process. Likewise for an Anglophone in a French speaking area who faces charges, they will get a translator.

The same goes for the Chinese (insert any language known to man here) speaker, the sign language speaker or the braille reader. The Court's obligation is to ensure that the accused/defendant is enabled to understand the proceedings against them not to conduct an entire trial in the language du jour.

The Supreme Court is by nature a bilingual institution, it supplies translators to both the counsels, clerks, judges and provides its judgements in both official languages. All documents generated by the SCC are vetted by the official translating services of the GOC. The SCC also hears cases from both the Civil code side of the house and the Common law side of the house (something that outside of that each jurisdiction is never done - you won't hear a Quebec judge defaulting to common law and vice versa with a common law judge).

Now law firms and lawyers offer language services to attract specific market groups, so an accused/defendant is likely to at least be able to hire a counsel that speaks their language - if they don't hire one that can at least speak and take instruction from them then they can hardly boo-hoo later that they didn't understand the process.

But before the question gets asked what about just conducting a trial in the chosen language of the accused/defendant - surely it would be easy to find a judge, jurors and counsel that all speak the language. Why not? Simple answer is that it excludes a properly constituted array of potential jurors. (see the Sandy Lake case for a detailed explanation of why that's important to our judicial system)

I have been at the SCC where the entire hearing has been conducted in French and those Justices that do not feel comfortable following a complex case in a second language use a translator. Same for the cases in English. How is anything my learned friend is proposing going to change that?

[BeaverFever]

I guess there's just an expectation that the use of translation services for French and English should be minimized in the interest of democracy and federalism. A failure to address these types of issues is what causes Quebeckers to feel like immigrants and second-class citizens in their own country.

[Benn]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Also, the government has a pretty thorough and formal system of assessing and testing langauge capability. It also has a pretty good system of teaching French and English as a second langauge for government personnel, Stephen Harper is a pretty good example, as already mentioned.

Been to and seen these places. Yes they are good but won't get you near a level of a translator who will know the language better than a lot of native speakers.

[c2shinysea]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I guess there's just an expectation that the use of translation services for French and English should be minimized in the interest of democracy and federalism. A failure to address these types of issues is what causes Quebeckers to feel like immigrants and second-class citizens in their own country.

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).

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?

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.