Bill C-232 explained in plain English
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages)
Federal Parliament bill summary, status, timeline, sponsor, votes, and official sources.
At a glance
Official Parliament of Canada snapshot for 40th Parliament, 1st Session. MP vote breakdowns appear when the House of Commons publishes a recorded division export for that bill. Senate and House stage details include official debate/sitting links when LEGISinfo publishes them.
Our plain-language take, written for civic education.
Source: By PoliticalData.ca
Bill C-232 would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that Supreme Court judges be able to understand both French and English without the assistance of an interpreter.
Bill C-232 proposes to change the rules for who can be appointed as a judge to Canada's Supreme Court. Currently, Section 5 of the Supreme Court Act sets out eligibility requirements for Supreme Court judges. This bill would add a new requirement: any person eligible to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge must also be able to understand both English and French without needing an interpreter. In other words, the bill would make bilingual language ability (understanding, not necessarily speaking) in Canada's two official languages a formal qualification for Supreme Court appointments. This would mean that future Supreme Court judges would need to comprehend legal arguments, documents, and proceedings in both English and French directly, rather than relying on interpretation services.
- Amends Section 5 of the Supreme Court Act by renumbering the existing provision as subsection 5(1)
- Adds a new subsection 5(2) that requires any person eligible for Supreme Court judicial appointment to understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter
- Establishes bilingual understanding of Canada's official languages as a formal requirement for Supreme Court judge appointments
- Individuals being considered for appointment as Supreme Court of Canada judges
- The Prime Minister and government officials responsible for nominating Supreme Court judges
- The Canadian public, as the composition and language capabilities of the Supreme Court would change
- Supreme Court judges must understand French and English without interpreter assistance to be eligible for appointment under the proposed new requirement
- First Reading: November 26, 2008
- The bill text does not specify how language proficiency would be assessed or demonstrated
- The bill does not clarify whether this requirement applies only to future appointments or to current judges
- The bill does not specify whether 'understand' means passive comprehension only, or whether judges must also be able to speak both languages
- The status and current stage of this bill is listed as 'Outside the Order of Precedence,' which typically indicates it is not currently scheduled for parliamentary consideration
- It is unclear what enforcement mechanism would exist to verify language proficiency
The existing eligibility criteria for Supreme Court judges are renumbered as subsection 5(1), and a new subsection 5(2) is added that requires appointed judges to understand both French and English without an interpreter's assistance
Source: Section 1 of Bill C-232
Generated using AI from official bill text. Not legal advice. It is written by PoliticalData.ca for civic education, automatically checked and spot-reviewed before publishing.
Official textParliamentary Process
We don't have a plain-language summary for First reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Second reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Third reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
Bill C-232, concerning amendments to the Supreme Court Act related to official languages, completed its first reading in the House of Commons on November 26, 2008, and is currently outside the Order of Precedence.
This record indicates that Bill C-232, titled 'An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages)', completed its first reading in the House of Commons on November 26, 2008. This is the initial stage where a bill is formally introduced. The bill is currently outside the Order of Precedence, meaning it has not yet been scheduled for further debate or action. The record also notes a similar bill, C-559, was introduced in a previous Parliament.
Bill C-232, concerning official languages and the Supreme Court Act, was formally introduced in the House of Commons on November 26, 2008, marking its first reading.
On November 26, 2008, during the first reading stage in the House of Commons, Bill C-232, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act regarding the understanding of official languages, was introduced. This stage involves the formal introduction of the bill and a brief debate, but no vote occurs. The provided text details the proceedings of the House of Commons on that day, including various statements, oral questions, and routine proceedings. The specific artifact contains the record of the sitting, which includes the introduction of several bills, but does not detail the debate or discussion surrounding Bill C-232 itself beyond its formal introduction.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Second reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Consideration in committee yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Report stage yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Third reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
Debate and sitting links point to official parliamentary sources when LEGISinfo publishes them. Any plain-language discussion summaries should be generated from those official texts and reviewed before public display.
Vote Summary
This bill is still active. We only show vote counts after the legislature publishes a recorded division.
No published representative vote breakdown
This bill is still moving through the process. When a recorded division is published, representative positions can be listed here.
Official sources
Status, sponsor, votes, and timeline on this page are drawn from these official legislative sources and public records. Each summary above is attributed to its own source.
How this data is sourced