Justice minister's top court fears unfounded
Edmonton Journal June 15, 2010
Re: "Alberta challenges bill requiring top court judges to be bilingual; Canadians' trust in the Supreme Court is at risk, justice minister says," by Alison Redford, Opinion, June 10.
We would like to clarify several points that Justice Minister Alison Redford raises in her article and express our concern about the position she has chosen for our province.
First, Bill C-232 does not require all Supreme Court justices to be fluently bilingual, as she erroneously states. The bill would require all future members of the Supreme Court to be able to understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter.
Redford raises the possibility of language proficiency, rather than legal competency, becoming the determining factor in the selection of judges. When addressing this concern, we must remember that all of Canada's federal laws are adopted in both official languages and that they are equally authoritative. Understanding the law in both French and English is a more complete and effective understanding of the law, thus increasing one's legal competency. Therefore, to be "legally qualified" at the Supreme Court of Canada, a judge must have at least a basic understanding of both French and English. In this light, we can consider the knowledge of a second language as an acquirable qualification, rather than an obstacle for aspiring Supreme Court judges.
Another concern is the risk of establishing an inflexible linguistic requirement that could prevent the vast majority of the current legal bar in Western Canada from being considered for the Supreme Court. While this is a legitimate concern by the many jurists who have devoted their careers to serving the public, we must not forget that the public's needs and concerns outweigh the needs and concerns of those called to serve. Senator Claudette Tardif notes that the Supreme Court was not established to meet the needs of judges, but to serve the citizens of this country.
For francophone Canadians, enjoying the equality of status, rights and privileges with anglophones is most important and protected by the charter of rights. To achieve this equality, each party must be able to be heard in conditions that do not put them at a disadvantage to others, such as being heard through an interpreter, where errors are known to be made. Such errors pose a great risk to the confidence that Canadians place in their justice system.
We also believe Redford's views on the possibility of eliminating the vast majority of western legal talent from the Supreme Court nomination process may be exaggerated. Again, fluent bilingualism is not what is demanded. Therefore, the training needed to become qualified under Bill C-232 is not as extensive as many may believe. Additionally, when considering the years of education already acquired by a judge, the acquisition of a basic knowledge of French will not be an obstacle for these talented individuals.
We can also look to the Quebec, Acadian and Ontarian francophones who have sat on the Supreme Court and have learned English well enough to understand the language without an interpreter. Furthermore, many jurists such as Alberta-born chief Justice Beverley McLachlin have overcome the "difficulty" of learning French and all Canadians are better served because of it.
Alberta also is better prepared for this bill than Redford states. The Commissioner of Official Languages counts 222,885 Albertans who have knowledge of Canada's two official languages. This is a remarkable number and it is increasing. Moreover, a 2009 national study by Prairie Research Associates -- conducted for Justice Canada -- found that, in Alberta, 75 judges and 1,280 lawyers with English as their first official language, claim to know French.
Our province also boasts excellent programs that will surely continue to equip our future jurists. The itinerant French Court Program trains judges to become fluent enough to hear trials in either official language without the use of a translator.
Alberta is also home to the Campus Saint-Jean of the University of Alberta, one of the most important and recognizable francophone educational institutions in Western Canada. Many of our western lawyers and judges are alumni of Saint-Jean.
Redford suggests that Bill C-232 poses a serious risk in the confidence that Canadians place in the justice system because the Supreme Court's legitimacy comes from its ability to be representative of all regions of the country. While regional representation does play an important role in the reflection of the many interests of our country, we contend that the role of representation is more appropriately played by the elected members of Parliament.
Canadians must not look to the court to represent them, but instead to adjudicate in an unbiased fashion to preserve the integrity of our justice system and by extension, preserve the confidence of Canadians.
Linguistic duality is an integral part of our Canadian identity and history and it is protected by the charter of rights. The francophone minority of Canada stretches from coast to coast, has historically contributed to this country's development in innumerable ways and wishes to continue to do so. Having Supreme Court judges who can understand the official languages without the need for an interpreter allows for Canadians across the country to be served without prejudice in the official language of their choice.
Justine Mageau, vice-president, Regroupement étudiant de common law en francais, Spruce Grove
Last Update : 2010-06-21
