Article content

The appointment of judge Russell Brown to the Supreme Court of Canada has been questioned in some quarters, not because of his powers of adjudication, as his professional record is excellent, but because the government did not announce whether he speaks French. This is an unfounded criticism, as competence in both languages should not be a serious consideration when selecting canadidates for our highest court.

Bilingualism in the context of the Supreme Court means legal fluency, a far more onerous standard for second-language competence than exists for other federal government jobs. Yes, certain jobs require a person to be completely fluent in both languages. But for others, merely being able to carry on a conversation in the second language is adequate, thus allowing people who are not “naturally bilingual,” but who are otherwise the most qualified, to compete.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or National Post View: Putting bilingualism before competency Back to video

In demanding a bilingual bench, proponents are clearly insinuating that judges should have a level of fluency that, in many cases, can only be achieved by people who have grown up in French-speaking areas of the country.

In demanding a bilingual bench, proponents — including Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau — are clearly insinuating that judges should have a level of fluency that, in many cases, can only be achieved by people who have grown up in French-speaking areas of the country, such as Quebec and New Brunswick. Doing so would mean that a disproportionate number of future appointments would be selected from eastern Canada, and a great number of highly qualified legal minds would be rejected, simply because of their French-language skills.