Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette is making headlines these days for appointing a longtime friend to the bench and canceling calls for judicial nominations. In another case, less publicized, but worrying, the minister could not help but strike a new trip up the judiciary.
This time, the Legault government wants to give itself the means to reduce the budget of the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec, which is contesting part of the reform of Law 101 on the bilingualism of judges.
Minister Jolin-Barrette’s continual bickering with the judiciary is not only tiresome: it does not serve the interests of justice. While our justice system faces many challenges, this attitude of the minister is generally counterproductive. Even more so when he is wrong and attacks the independence of the judiciary, as is the case with Bill 26 tabled last week.
With this bill, the CAQ wants to subject the budget of the Conseil de la magistrature to an annual vote of the deputies. That’s pretty much how it works at the federal level for the Canadian Judicial Council.
Since its creation in 1978, the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec has established its own budget and is automatically financed by the province’s consolidated fund, in the name of judicial independence. The deputies or the government have no right of scrutiny over the Council’s budget. There has never been any abuse or problem.
You have to be blind not to see the intention behind Bill 26. Minister Jolin-Barrette believes that the Council should not, using public funds, contest part of the reform of the 101. This dispute has cost the Council $1.1 million last year. The issue in dispute: who, between the Court of Québec and the Minister of Justice, must decide in what circumstances fluency in English is necessary to appoint a judge.
No one is fooled: if the bill is adopted, the CAQ deputies, in the majority in the National Assembly, will be able to prevent the Council from having the financial resources to challenge a law relating to the judiciary (e.g.: a part of the reform of Law 101). This would eliminate a counter-power.
Minister Jolin-Barette justifies his bill by the fact that “we cannot spend without counting Quebecers’ money” and suggests that the Council is spending money in excess of its mandate.
We strongly disagree with these comments.
The Council does not spend “without counting”. He contests a law within the framework of his mandate defined by law:
- the training of judges;
- the ethics of judges;
- the efficiency of justice.
The Council is in its right to challenge the part of the reform of Law 101 applying to judges, in the name of the efficiency of justice and judicial independence (article 10 of the Code of ethics of judges) . The Council’s interest in undertaking such a challenge was even confirmed by the Superior Court in a similar case last year! A defeat that Minister Jolin-Barrette seems to have forgotten…
Moreover, we did not hear the Legault government complain when the Council intervened, using public funds, to support the arguments of the Attorney General of Quebec in another dispute a few years ago…
Judicial independence is a fundamental principle of our rule of law. It must be defended relentlessly.
Judicial independence is both the individual independence of the judge, but also the institutional independence of the courts, which requires that relations with the executive and legislative powers must “be reduced to a minimum”. This is not the spirit of Bill 26.
In addition, new accountability measures for the Council have just come into force: the Council must submit its budget forecasts to the Minister of Justice, and its books will henceforth be audited by the Auditor General. These are excellent initiatives that respect judicial independence.
Minister Jolin-Barrette has spent the last year in conflict before the courts with the chief judge of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau (also president of the Conseil de la magistrature), about the schedule of judges in the criminal division. In this file, we had defended the vision of Minister Jolin-Barrette. The two sides reached a compromise last month.
Without good reason, the Minister Jolin-Barrette leaves a new chicane.
Rather, it should focus all of its energies on the many challenges of our justice system. It would be much more useful than another round of boxing against the bench.