Should Supreme Court appointees be required to be bilingual?

Most of the news about the Supreme Court of Canada over the past few days has been about the public spat over the appointment of Marc Nadon to the top court's bench.

But here's another story that should be getting some attention.

On Wednesday, Parliament will be voting on a private member's bill that would require all Supreme Court appointees to be bilingual.

It will likely face the same fate as most private members bills — it will be defeated — but it raises an interesting question.

Bill C-208 — introduced by NDP MP Yvon Godin — would amend the Supreme Court Act and to require "judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter."

"By requiring future Supreme Court judges to be bilingual, we can ensure that French-speakers across Canada have equal standing before the highest court in the country," Godin said in a statement.

Similar bills have been introduced twice before. In 2011, it actually passed in the House of Commons but was stalled in the Senate and then dissolved when the election was called.

The Liberals are supporting this version of the bill and Godin is urging the Conservatives to join in.

"This is a great opportunity for Conservative MPs to show their constituents that they are defending their interests in Ottawa, and not just blindly following orders from the Prime Minister’s Office," he said.

"Francophones across the country will be on the lookout tomorrow to see who is standing up for their rights. I hope this will include at least some Conservative MPs."

[ Related: Harper not backing down from spat with Supreme Court ]

Godin, however, shouldn't hold his breath.

Prime Minister Harper has already appointed two uni-lingual Anglo Supreme Court judges and his office says that they're happy with a status-quo selection process.

"Our Government will continue to be guided by the principles of merit and legal excellence in the selection and appointment of judges," PMO Director of Communications Jason MacDonald said in an email exchange with Yahoo Canada News.

"Each and every one of our judicial appointments to date reflects these principles.

"We are in regular discussions with Chief Justices to make sure we are meeting the linguistic needs of each of province and we encourage minority language communities to encourage qualified candidates to apply for judicial appointment."

In debate in the House of Commons in February, Robert Goguen, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, echoed those sentiments.

"Passing Bill C-208 would mean giving greater importance to linguistic considerations than to merit, by reducing the pool of otherwise highly-qualified candidates, particularly from parts of the country where there may be fewer judges who are capable of handling cases in both official languages," Goguen said.

"Indeed, the Supreme Court already respects the right of all Canadians to be heard and understood in the language of their choice. All Supreme Court services are provided in English and French, and all communication already takes place in both official languages."

[ More Politics: First Nations leaders disagree on aboriginal education bill ]

Last June, another NDP private member's bill on bilingualism received Royal assent. Bill C-419 made bilingualism a necessary skill for 10 officers of parliament including the Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Official Languages.

As a timely aside, Auditor General Michael Ferguson — who was appointed by Stephen Harper in 2011, before C-419 became law — wasn't bilingual but vowed to learn French.

Lo and behold, at a press conference about his office's latest report on Tuesday reporters were abuzz at how how effortlessly responded to French-language questions.

What do you think? Should Supreme Court appointees be bilingual?

Share your thoughts in the comments area below.

Are you a politics junkie?
Follow @politicalpoints on Twitter!