Flawed argument
Edmonton Journal May 16, 2010
Alberta's three remaining senators-elect sed Senator Claudette Tardif's support for Bill C-232 as an example to illustrate why unelected senators must not represent Albertans.
Bill C-232 would require all future members of the Supreme Court to be able to understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter; not necessarily be fluently bilingual, as the senators-elect wrongly claim.
Unger, Breitkreuz and Byfield say this bill effectively kills the chances of most legally qualified western Canadian lawyers and judges to sit on our highest court. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, all of Canada's federal laws are adopted in both official languages and are equally authoritative. The judges of our highest court are entrusted with the task of interpreting these laws, and seemingly, would be unqualified if they are unable to fully understand or interpret both versions of our laws.
Often, judges must refer to the French version of the laws to fully understand and grasp the true meaning of certain words and phrases. It could therefore be argued, that to be "legally qualified" at the Supreme Court, 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. Furthermore, as Tardif notes, the Supreme Court was not established to meet the needs of judges, but to serve the citizens.
Second, the senators-elect are misinformed in their assessment of French-speaking lawyers in Alberta and Canada. Canada boasts two excellent French common law programs that attract many aspiring lawyers from across the country. I am among many Albertans and western Canadians studying French common law at the University of Ottawa, with the intention of returning to Alberta upon graduation. The University of Moncton also offers a French common law program. Furthermore, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia each have French-speaking lawyer associations that connect western francophones with more than 300 French-speaking lawyers.
Unger, Breitkreuz and Byfield's also claim that bilingualism is declining. The number of bilingual Canadians is not what is most important in regards to this bill. I would argue that enjoying equality of status, rights and privileges with English is what is most important for the nearly 70,000 francophones in Alberta, the one million francophones living outside of Quebec and the seven
llion francophones nationwide. To achieve this equality, each party must be able to be heard in conditions that do not put him or her at a disadvantage, such as being heard through an interpreter, where errors have known to be made.
I am bothered that Unger and Co. believe that such misinformed analysis comprises the "sober second thought" that the 21st century demands. While there are certainly improvements to be made to our Senate, I am grateful for senators such as Tardif who are working hard to protect Canadians, minority groups and their rights.
Albert Nolette, Edmonton
Last Update : 2010-06-22
