A former Supreme Court justice says that a new bill which would make bilingualism a pre-requisite to preside over the country's highest court is misguided.
Retired justice Jack Major said Friday that the proposed legislation simply sets an unrealistic standard.
"I think the problem is that it puts linguistic ability ahead of competence," he told CTV's Power Play.
"In my view, there should be one test to begin with, and that's competency. Everything else is secondary to that."
Supporters of the bill say that judges who lack French fluency miss out on generations of jurisprudence.
Bill C-232 originated as a private members bill and it passed through the House of Commons last March after opposition MPs united against the Conservatives.
The bill is now under the consideration of the Senate and could pass into law this spring.
Major, speaking from Calgary, said that finding fluently bilingual candidates in provinces west of Ontario will be difficult if the bill passes.
While French immersion schools are available in the West, Major said classroom experience isn't enough.
He added that legislation places the linguistic bar too high, in that it requires fluency in both French and English.
"You have to live in a community, you have to work in the language, it's a very, very high standard," he said.
On the other hand, Major said that French resources are currently available to judges, and he noted that international bodies like the United Nations work with the use of translators.
"What is puzzling to me (is that) Parliament works with translators, the International Court in The Hague works with translators," Major said.
Currently, most Supreme Court judges are bilingual, but not all of them could be considered fluent.
"It's not as though there are not French resources available to the English speaking judges, and vice versa, of course," he said.
While Major said that he always "regretted" the fact that he wasn't fluent in French, he said that he never felt "hampered" during his 13-year tenure, which finished in 2005.
"The notion that you can't fully understand a case with the help of a translator, it doesn't bear scrutiny in my view."
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government's position on the bill is similar to Major's.
"While its intentions may be good in its practicality, we feel it doesn't move us in the right direction," he told Power Play.
"We opposed it in the House of Commons and we'll continue to oppose it."
