The issue of bilingualism in the Supreme Court of Canada.

By James M. Bond

I don’t know if a private member’s bill has ever garnered so much attention. Last month, Bill C-232, which will require that all appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter, passed third reading in the House of Commons and moved on to the Senate for consideration.

I have heard from many members on this issue. I have even heard from a few non-members. In fact, I have received more correspondence on this issue than I have on all other issues during my term of office combined. It is clear that there are some strongly held views on the legislation, and, in particular, on the perceived impact that the legislation may have on the available pool of British Columbia candidates for this country’s top court.

The arguments for and against Bill C-232 have been well laid out elsewhere and I will not repeat them in detail here. However, I will re-state two obvious realities. First, a fully bilingual Supreme Court of Canada is a laudable goal. Second, there are relatively few jurists in British Columbia who understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter.

Many of you will know that as a Branch of the Canadian Bar Association, the CBABC is bound to follow national policy on an issue. As of this point, the Canadian Bar Association does not have a national policy on Bill C-232 specifically. However, the CBA has passed a number of resolutions over the past couple of decades that deal with bilingualism of jurists. The most recent resolution calls on government to consider bilingualism a “merit criteria” (that is, that bilingual ability should be a factor in considering applicants for the Supreme Court of Canada).

In my personal view, the current CBA resolution on the matter is the best approach. It means that bilingualism would be a positive factor to be considered in an applicant’s undoubtedly already impressive set of personal characteristics and accomplishments, but unilingualism would not be a bar to appointment.

In any event, it is quite likely that Bill C-232 will be the subject of debate at the CBA’s annual general meeting in Niagara this August. It will also be on the agenda for the upcoming British Columbia Provincial Council meeting on June 19th.

Consider this fair warning. If you want your Provincial Council (and the British Columbia Branch generally) to take a position on this matter if and when it arises at the CBA National Council in August, then we need to hear your views on the subject now. If you do not let your views on the subject be known, we cannot act on them. We hope that you will take this opportunity to give us your thoughts so that the British Columbia delegates to National Council can continue their strong tradition of advocacy on issues important to CBA members from this province.

You may also wish to voice your views to other law-related organizations in British Columbia. It is interesting to note that the only law-related organization to address Bill C-232 during hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was the Law Society of New Brunswick. As I’m sure you know, New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the Law Society of New Brunswick supported the legislation.

A bientôt.

This article was published in the June 2010 issue of BarTalk. © 2010 The Canadian Bar Association. All rights reserved.