Undoubtedly Senator Claudette Tardif is another politician that lives in an ivory tower with little knowledge about what happens in the world of justice.
Every day across Canada judges hear similar cases, be they in French or English, and the sentences they impose are as different as night and day. I would be of the opinion that this would be the case no matter the language spoken and it is folly to think that translation nuances are going to be the deciding factor.
The learned senator says nothing about merit to attain the job and when she indicates the knowledge of language subtleties are mandatory, I would argue those taking French as a second language seldom reach that criteria. Therefore, one could reasonably conclude that such positions would only be available to those for whom French is their official first language.
Further, there have been many cases heard in one language where the Supreme Court justices were not all in accord. Therein may lie the problem — judges are too free to render their interpretation of the law and many of the sentences they impose are deemed lax and unresponsive to society. Perhaps we should be following the lead of the United States wherein some judges are elected and not given such ultimate indefinite lifetime appointments.
One could surely say that many of the current judges are not all viewed with favour by the public, however there is no way to rid ourselves of their jurisprudence. The language issue, while I support bilingualism, is another matter. However, I have witnessed the federal government's actions in Ontario whereby many capable Anglophone bureaucrats and supervisors were displaced with bilinguals/Francophones simply because the government wanted to impose its will, even in cities where English was the primary language. How long will it be before any English-speaking judge is pushed aside for another language of other minority groups?
A. Boland, St. Albert
