Bilingualism for top court judges essential: MP

Supreme Court of Canada judicial appointees should be completely bilingual, according to a New Brunswick MP whose private member's bill would make the requirement law.

Eight of nine justices in the country's highest court can now hear cases in both English and French, but NDP MP Yvon Godin's Bill C-232would make it mandatory for Supreme Courtjudges to be able to understand both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

Godin said interpreters should not be relied on in the Supreme Court of a bilingual country.

"We want the judges to be able to, when he get appointed to be know both languages, to be able to understand what the other person is saying," said Godin, who represents an almost exclusively francophone riding.

"I think it time now that that has been established."

The bill has made its way through the House of Commons by a 140-137 vote.

Godin's bill also received support from Liberals, the Bloc Qubcois and an Independent MP. The Conservatives voted against the measure to make bilingualism mandatory for top court appointments.

The bill is now in the Senate.

Language would trump competence

John Major, who served as a Supreme Court of Canada justice from 1992 to 2005, said Godin's bill would make language skills more important than legal competence.

"Well, I think it misses the point. As we all know, Canada is a country that is governed by the rule of law, and the most essential fact necessary to preserve that is to have the most competent people, regardless of language skills, sit on the Supreme Court," he told CBC News Monday.

"Parliament uses translators, but more importantly, the United Nations uses translators."

Major said judges hearing a case in the Supreme Court are very well versed on the cases they hear before setting foot in the courtroom.

"You get the trial judgment, you get the Court of Appeal judgment, you get the arguments from both sides and you go in the court very well prepared. With the assistance, if needed, of the translator, you get a complete understanding of what the case is about," said Major, who is now associated with the law firm Bennett Jones in Calgary.

He said he's comfortable that he was able to understand, with the aid of interpreters,every case he heard.

Eight justices currently on the bench are not fully fluent, Major said, as claimed by Godin.

"They have some language skills, but not complete," he said.

It would be a step backward to require all judgesto bebilingual, Major said, because it would disenfranchise good lawyers who are unilingual.

"You're then putting the emphasis on linguistics and not on the rights, obligations, duties of the people involved in the process," he said.

"Theres no substitute for competence. Peoples lives, in a manner of speaking, depend frequently on what the Supreme Court of Canada says."

Major said if this should become law, Canadians would have to "settle for less than fully competent people."

Best candidates would seek training

But Michel Doucet, a law professor at the University of Moncton who specializes in language law, said that if speaking French is a qualification for the job, the best candidates will ensure they're properly trained.

"If I wanted to be an astronaut I'd make sure I had the proper qualifications to be one," Doucet said. "I wouldn't just say, 'I want to go to the moon,' and that should be sufficient."

Doucet spoke to the parliamentary committee studying the proposed changes in Godin's bill.

He said that Supreme Court interpreters are good at their jobs, but he is often preoccupied during a trial with how his words are being interpreted.

"If you win the case 9-0 then you don't even wonder about it. But if you lose a case 5-4, and it's happened to me in one instance, you always wonder if your message got through to the court," Doucet said.