Only a lawyer would put forth such a proposal. 
Apart from red necks in each area, I think you’ll find that everyone in Canada agrees with this.
The media likes to blow things out of proportion on both sides. More anglophone kids today are studying French than ever before. I don’t have a cite, but I’ll bet it’s the truth.
As for English in Quebec, it’s a given that more kids are learning it due to the global environment in which we live.
There are some xenophobes on each side, but like I’ve always stated, we have much more in common than we have different. I really think this whole issue (English/French) is politically and media-driven. The rest of us just want to get along.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that learning a language is easy. It isn’t for most people once they are no longer children – you have to look no further than at the average immigrant who has not had previous exposure to English or French. Now try to imagine what it is like trying to learn without being immersed in the language they way immigrants are.
Also keep in mind that there is fluency and then there is fluency. The degree of fluency required in a lawyer or a judge is light years beyond the level of fluency needed to carry on simple transactions or basic conversations. Most importantly, keep in mind that the judge should be able to listen, think, discuss and write decisions in his or her mother tongue as far as possible. The last thing that a party would want would be to be before a judge who is officially bilingual and who does not have access to translators, but who in fact is not truly fluent at the highest level.
Yes, learning French is a wonderful thing, or learning any other language for that matter, for it opens up doors to other cultures and other histories. I truly believe that a parent short-changes his or her child by not encouraging the child to study languages, and I am very glad to see more opportunities for students to learn French. That said, in Alberta (where the SCC gets its mono-lingual judges) it does not make much sense to put hundreds of thousands of students through years of language education to become truly fluent in French so that one of them might someday make it to the Supreme Court of Canada and a few more of them might become federal mandarins, while most of the rest of them would eventually lose their proficiency in French because they live in an mono-lingual English society. They’d be better off putting students through Chinese or German language education to better position themselves on the world economic stage. Intensive French language education throughout Alberta would be terrific, but it simply will not happen. The degree to which French classes and immersion programs are offered is noteworthy, but ultimately French will never blossom in Alberta.
Just as Alberta has to recognize and accommodate for Quebec being a distinct society with its own language, Quebec must also recognize and accommodate for Alberta and the ROC as being distinct societies with their own language. Presuming that federal and judicial jobs should be held by francophones and simply tossing out what is interpreted by many Albertans as “well you should learn French in butt-swat Alberta where no one speaks French if you want a cushy federal job that is paid for out of the taxes we take from you,” simply will not wash with the ROC. It comes down to looking at what is necessary and practicable, rather than what would be ideal in a perfect world.
Yes, I would feel comfortable standing before a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who required a translator (or more correctly, I’ve been before my province’s top appeal court, but never before the Supremes, so yes I’d be nervous, but not because of the translation issue). As a practice point, when I am in court and a translator is being used, I bring my own translator to keep tabs on everything so that I don’t get caught short due to a bad translation. As far as nuance, subtlety and idiomatic terms go, a good lawyer will keep the presentation and the discussion clear, simple, and to the point. The appeal judges will be working from written materials. The lawyers will verbally direct the judges to the most important points, and the judges will ask the lawyers very direct questions. “Keep It Simple Stupid!” applies to the classroom and the courtroom.
Where I think it is better to have a judge who is highly fluent in a particular language is at trial court, where the judge will be listening to the oral evidence of witnesses. For criminal matters in Canada an accused can chose to have a trial court judge who is fluent in either English or French. Since the Supreme Court of Canada does not listen to oral evidence, I am not concerned about the need for a translator.
The present linguistic arrangements for the Supreme Court of Canada meet the constitutional guarantee of three seats from Quebec on the SCC, meaning that Quebec gets 37 ½ % the seats on the court, despite only having 23% of the population of Canada. Quebec is over-represented if one were to only look at proportional linguistic representation, and as discussed above, the cultural representation of Alberta would be harmed if all SCC judges had to be highly fluent in French, which Quebec is pressing for. Meanwhile, there are many other languages and cultures that are knocking at the door seeking access to justice. If you are not willing to recognize and discuss these competing linguistic and cultural needs with respect to our justice system, then don’t be surprised when your desire to have French representation in the justice system increased is met with the simple and factually correct answer that Quebec already has far more than proportional representation at the SCC.
Languages and cultures other than English and French are not red-herrings when discussing access to justice. It is necessary that we all have access to justice. We cannot have justice for English and French speakers, but no justice for everyone else. I have clients who do not speak English or French, but who do speak one of Oji-Cree, Portuguese, Italian, Polish, Ukrainian, Czech, Chinese, and Finnish. I’ve had three calls today from a francophone who cannot find a French speaking lawyer in my town who has the time to take him on as a client. Each and every one of them deserves access to justice every bit as much as you and I do. Here is theStats Can list of mother tongues that it tracks in Canada:
[INDENT]English
French
Algonquin
Atikamekw
Cree
Malecite
Mi’kmaq
Montagnais-Naskapi
Ojibway
Blackfoot
Oji-Cree
Carrier
Chilcotin
Chipewyan
Dene
Dogrib
Kutchin-Gwich’in (Loucheux)
North Slave (Hare)
South Slave
Haida
Mohawk
Kutenai
Shuswap
Thompson (Ntlakapamux)
(Dakota/Sioux)
Tlingit
Gitksan
Nisga’a
Tsimshian
Nootka
Inuktitut
Inuinnaqtun
Italian
Portuguese
Romanian
Spanish
Dutch
Flemish
Frisian
German
Yiddish
Danish
Icelandic
Norwegian
Swedish
Celtic languages
Gaelic languages
Welsh
Belarusan (Byelorussian)
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Czech
Macedonian
Polish
Russian
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Ukrainian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Estonian
Finnish
Hungarian
Greek
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Turkish
Berber (Kabyle)
Oromo
Somali
Amharic
Arabic
Hebrew
Maltese
Tigrigna
Bengali
Gujarati
Hindi
Konkani
Marathi
Panjabi (Punjabi)
Sindhi
Sinhala (Sinhalese)
Urdu
Kurdish
Pashto
Persian (Farsi)
Dravidian languages
Kannada
Malayalam
Tamil
Telugu
Japanese
Korean
Cantonese
Chaochow (Teochow)
Fukien
Hakka
Mandarin
Shanghainese
Taiwanese
Lao
Thai
Khmer (Cambodian)
Vietnamese
Ilocano
Malay
Pampango
Tagalog (Pilipino, Filipino)
Akan (Twi)
Lingala
Rundi (Kirundi)
Rwanda (Kinyarwanda)
Shona
Swahili
Edo
Igbo
Wolof
Creoles
American Sign Language
Quebec Sign Language [/INDENT]
The reason that we have English and French as official languages is that the English and the French were in control when Canada was formed. As for all but two of the many official languages of the Northwest Territories – those people arrived here before the English and the French. Of the speakers of the great many languages of immigrants to Canada following Confederation, they all came here hoping for a just society. If one were to say that they should simply learn English or French to have access to justice, then one could just as easily say that francophones should simply learn English. Society, and the access to justice which is a cornerstone of society, is not that simple. As far as I am concerned, we are all in it together, and we all deserve access to justice, regardless of who arrived when and who had the most power and control at various times in our past. To make the legal system work, we must use translators, rather than expect everyone else to learn English or French before being able to gain access to justice, and we must appoint judges from as many of the various cultural and linguistic communities as possible, so as to ensure that the judiciary is representative of the people whom they serve, even although that means that not all judges will speak both English and French, resulting in the occasional SCC judge using a translator on some cases.
Most people never receive a criminal trial; almost everyone gets a public education. No matter the local population of the minority language the need for education services will be fifty times greater than the need for a criminal court judge. I don’t even personally know anyone who, to my knowledge, has been on trial in a criminal court.
There’s also the simple fact that a judge could, with a translator, preside over a trial. But a teacher can’t use a translator, or else you’d just fire the teacher and use the translator as the teacher.
I’ve seen a lot of black people on TV be arrested, which doesn’t mean black people are all criminals.
It is just simply, flatly false to state than Anglophones object to French instruction in school in any proportion that matters. It’s quite literally not an issue here. The number of people who object to “having to learn any French at all” is, in any statistically meaningful sense, zero. French has been part of the basic curriculum for so long now that it never really occurs to anyone that things would be any other way.
The thing is that you can’t make someone functionally bilingual with a few hours of instruction a week - in fact, even immersion generally isn’t retained unless it continues to be used after school. Virtually all my classmates are living proof of that; we were all bilingual at the end of Grade 8 and the majority of us have since lost it. I’m sure we could get it back (I can still read in French) but it’s remarkably hard to keep hold of.
It is hardly controversial to say a person is enriched by knowing two languages.
And to be honest, I am completely unmoved by people who bitch and whine about not being able to get jobs when the bilingual requirement is clear as a bell. If somone didn’t research their career choices it’s their fault.
Geez this stuff is complex. 
[/QUOTE]
Nothing is stopping you from doing anything. As I’ve said repeatedly in the past, you want it, you pay for it.
French in the west is only relevant because people like you make a big deal out of it and want us to acknowledge the ancient history of who from Europe got here first as if it still matters.
Yet, French in the west isn’t the second language spoken. It is more likely the 4th or lower. Time moves on and reality changes. Yes, if I wanted my kids to work in the public sector, I’d have to get them taught French. But if I want them to work in business, as most people do, and be successful globally, then French isn’t even in contention. Spanish or Chinese would be a far better choice. Or, even better, have the UN declare an ‘official’ world language and learn that whatever the crap it is. Esperanto or something. I can guarantee which language it won’t be, though: French.
I don’t know how things are done in small towns now, but when I was growing up in a small Saskatchewan town, French wasn’t even offered in school except as a correspondence course. German was the in-school second language offered. There was no French immersion at all.
For the record, Calgary has dropped French from the mandatory curriculum in public schools this fall.
Speaking of cultures fading away, I think about my Mennonite side of the family when talking about that. Yes, it has faded away; my grandma spoke mostly Low German and a little English; I speak English and a little Low German. She was Mennonite; I’m Canadian. I don’t feel a loss of culture; my culture is Canadian. There are Mennonite branches who are retaining their culture; they have opted out of general Canadian society (Hutterites and Amish who still live in colonies); what they haven’t done is expected anyone else to retain their culture for them.
Depending on how you consider Chinese dialects, French is either the third or fourth most common mother tongue in Alberta. Notably, there are 9 ½ times as many speakers of non-offical languages in Alberta than there are French speakers. From Stats Can for Alberta:
English 2,576,670
German 84,505
French 61,225
Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka) 97,275
Non-official languages 583,530
Courtesy of that Viking fellow from Normandy, a bit under a third of English vocabulary is derived from French, and a bit under two thirds of English comes in a round about way from Latin. French is descended from Vulgar Latin for the most part, so I suppose that we could solve the language problem in Canada by decreeing that English is in fact French, which it isn’t, but there’s no need to tell anyone that.
In Criminal Code matters, the language of trial is covered by section 530 and section 530.1.
Section 530 provides that the accused has the right to request a trial in the language of the accused’s choice. Where the accused so requests, the judge…
Section 530.1 then goes on to provide further details, such as that the Crown must also speak the language of the accused.
These provisions apply across Canada, including Quebec. So an Anglophone charged with a criminal offence in Quebec has the right to be heard by an English speaking judge.
I would just like to redirect your attentions from the languages dispute for one moment to pay tribute to a dead politician, one not even from my own nation, but one who showed the kind of integrity you don’t see much of in politics any more. These are his words:
This is the reality in Alberta today: Spanish is what many parents want their children to learn as a second language.
Why? Two reasons: First, Spanish is widely spoken in the Americas–many English-speaking parents in Alberta do not expect their kids to emigrate to Quebec or Europe or Asia, but the kids might emigrate to the USA, where a knowledge of English is mandatory, and a knowledge of Spanish is increasingly important. And secondly, because Spanish is important when dealing with oil people–at least one Calgary school is all-Spanish-all-the-time because the many Venezuelan oil people on secondment to Canada want their children educated in Spanish.
To many Albertans, French is what you need to know if you want to work for the feds. But global business opportunities for their kids outnumber federal government opportunities, and many of those opportunities require Spanish, so Spanish is what Alberta parents are increasingly demanding.
Personally, after moving to Alberta, I have to say that my once-fluent French is withering, and my once-fluent Russian is almost dead. But the bit of Spanish I picked up from a past Spanish girlfriend is getting a lot of practice. It’s a shame, really, as I grew up and studied French for years in Ontario, where the importance of that language was always emphasized. Sadly, it is unimportant out here.
Among my clients are Mexican Mennonites. These are Canadian Mennonites who spend the winters working in Mexico. (Google “Mexican Mennonite” for more info.) Their first language and culture is Low German, their second language and culture is Spanish/Mexican, and their third language and culture is English Canadian. They may be Canadian citizens, but French isn’t even on their radar.
Different regions, different languages, different cultures.
I can see that being true.
Lets talk British Columbia: Obligatory Wiki Link
French 1.4% in 5th place essentially tied with Tagalog. If French wasn’t a Canadian ‘official language’, do you think they’d even think of it there?
Other than being a part of Canada the west doesn’t have the same concerns over language. Why would they given the numbers? It is the reality.
Oh crap, I had civil in my head and did not think about criminal. That’s a bad error on my part. Thanks for pointing it out, for the last thing I want to do is be misleading.
I wish the NDP would take their late leader’s advice.
Here in TBay, politicians are in the habit of canvasing their constituents, and voting accordingly for the most part. In short, they are responsible to their constituents first and foremost, even if it may not always be in agreement with the party line.
That occasionally gets them in trouble with their parties. For example, Comuzzi was blackballed by the Liberals when he did not go along with the party on same-sex marriage, despite his voting the way his constituents wanted him to vote, and then he was tossed out of the party and ended up crossing the floor for his vote on a money bill that his constituents were strongly in favour of. At the next election, the NDP took the riding.
Earlier this week the two local TBay NDP MPs voted for stopping the long gun registry, despite the NDP wanting it continued. The TBay MPs’ constituents are very strongly opposed to the long gun registry (one of the MPs told me the figure was 96% for his riding – I can’t remember what number the other one told me for his riding, but it was way up there too). Since the vote was not a money vote, and since the solid Conservative majority assured its passing, my local MPs’ votes had no effect on the outcome, but were highly relevant in reassuring their constituents that they are responsible to their constituents first and foremost. The NDP in its wisdom has blackballed them. One of my local riding presidents has gone as far as to publicly blast the party leadership over this. Coincidentally, the NDP has a bill that went through second reading earlier this week that would immediately kick MPs out of Parliament entirely if they cross the floor.
I find it rather sad that intolerance has replaced the tolerance for diversity that the NDP used to show under Layton (the strongest example being that the person whom he very strongly recommend as his temporary replacement as leader was a card carrying separatist until recently).
I guess the days are gone when an NDP MP could vote with integrity in accordance with the wishes of his or her constituents. It’s too bad that the NDP is getting into whipping with a strong arm and trying to pass legislation that will prevent MPs from being responsible to their constituents when the party line runs contrary to what the constituents want.
I want an MP who will be responsible to his or her constituents, and who will be able to fully represent their interests in Parliament by participating in inter-party committee work, question period, and caucus decision making. I expect parties to provide direction and support, but I also expect parties to respect the primary responsibility of each MP to his or her constituency, and to tolerate different points of view within the party and on the floor of the House. By blackballing the MPs in my area, the NPD has stood in the way of responsible government, and has attempted to stand between MPs and their constituents. That is not changing the world through love, hope and optimism, as Layton spoke of. His own party should step back and consider his words.
And in a surprise to absolutely no one, Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party has nearly wiped out the NDP, taking 49 of 58 seats, up from 38. Even NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter has lost, as have party stalwarts such as Deb Higgins and Judy Junor. The NDP campaign just never had any traction - not surprising, as it’s not hard for a government to run on its record after 4 of the most prosperous years in the province’s history. The NDP tried valiantly to buy votes with Potash Corp’s money (to find out how much of Potash Corp’s money the NDP would give you, follow this link), but the voters were unswayed.
I’m going with what I heard being reported on the news. Supreme Court justices sometimes having to juggle two different versions of a law text was specifically mentioned. Of course laws are being translated by professional translators, but what I understood was that for some laws the two versions do not exactly say the same thing, so some cases hinge on how the court will harmonize them. Was my understanding incorrect?
And now that I think about it, some laws in Canada will be written primarily in English, others will be written primarily in French, while others will have both versions take equal precedence. While I do trust professional translators, can we really expect a legal text and its translation to always have the exact same meaning, with the exact same nuances?
Yeah, I know, I was being rhetorical. As far as I know it even predates the constitution: when the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were created in 1791, Upper Canada was endowed with a system of civil laws derived from common law, while Lower Canada kept its civil law-derived system which had been reestablished in the Province of Quebec in 1774.* The criminal law system of the Province of Quebec, though, was common law-based, and so both provinces kept it.
So of course, now that it’s encased in the constitution, it cannot be changed. But if it weren’t so, it’d seem to me that delegating the responsibility to the provinces might start making sense, if we just couldn’t agree on what our criminal laws should look like.
*I’m not even sure if what I’m saying here makes sense. Upper Canada had a common law civil law while Lower Canada had a civil law civil law? Is “civil law” really used for both a paradigm of law (as opposed to “common law” and “Sharia law”, etc.) and for a type of legislation (as opposed to “criminal law”)? Yeah, I know I lack legal vocabulary.
What can I say, mnemosyne? We cannot agree on anything in this country because depending on whether you’re exposed to francophone or anglophone media, you get wildly different versions of what is supposed to be reality. Anglophones will hear everything about how Quebec and francophones constantly trample their rights, as well as the rights of every minority, and must be restrained to stop them from destroying the fabric of democracy in this country. Ibanez is quite aware, if not angry, of the presence of so many francophones in the public service (except scientists, but would you trust a French Canadian testing your armour? :p); and even Muffin, who’s a pretty moderate anglophone, is apparently not certain that Quebec would allow you an English-speaking judge. I, on the other hand, peruse French-language media. I know that Canada isn’t nearly as bilingual as it pretends to be (even those “bilingual” positions are often staffed by unilingual anglophones) and I know the condition of Quebec’s anglophones is much better than, say, Ontario’s francophones. If I speak with someone who’s immersed in English-language culture, whether that person is actually anglophone or not, they’ll bring forth a slew of complaints about Quebec and francophones, and I’ll respond with a slew of complaints about Ontario, Canada, anglophones, etc., and we’ll just be talking past each other. We’re pretty sure we’re right and the other side is just exaggerating. I mean, everything I heard probably came right from separatist media that was just trying to create anger to damage national unity.
Oh yes. I have to go to bed now; I’ll try to be back tomorrow to say more. I’m in Toronto for the week to attend a conference, and I don’t seem to have been the victim of a hate crime for now, so Canada seems to be working.
Or if you talk to someone like me who lives right next door to Quebec, and travels to the province occasionally, and attempts to speak a little French now and again you’ll get a much more moderated view of what some anglophones actually think.
Some of us do in fact see both sides of the coin and are not at all angry with Quebeckers. I actually applaud you for trying to retain your culture and language. I don’t want to see any the country split apart though, and some of the rules around bilingualism are a little silly, like when they tried to replace the postmistress of Pakenham because she wasn’t bilingual.
I’m not sure if the Occupy Regina and Saskatoon protestors are commendable or simply insane for continuing to tent it in the snow.
Massive pipeline project delayed by US - my vote is for taking all the money that would have been spent on the pipeline from northern Alberta to Texas and building a big ol’ oil refinery in Alberta.