There, enough is enough.
The thinly veiled contempt of the Quebec Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, for the judiciary is highly problematic.
His last two salvos are downright unworthy of a Minister of Justice.
This week, Minister Jolin-Barrette affirmed in quick succession that: 1) the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec would attempt “to actively influence” and “to hinder” the work of the National Assembly in defiance of the separation of powers ; 2) the Council would use public funds as an “open bar”.
In both cases, it is false. Very wrong. But it gives an idea of his degree of contempt for the judiciary.
Minister Jolin-Barrette and the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau, have been in constant conflict for years.
Last episode of this tiresome and harmful confrontation for the litigants: the National Assembly adopted Thursday a law modifying the financing of the Council of the magistrature.
Since 1978, the Council has been funded from the province’s consolidated fund, in the name of judicial independence. There has never been a problem. With the new law, the annual budget of the Council will be voted by the deputies, who will be able to reduce it as they wish.
To justify the new law, Minister Jolin-Barrette speaks of sound management of public funds. But no one is fooled: the Minister does not digest that the Council has contested, using public funds, the part of its reform of Bill 101 concerning the linguistic qualifications of judges.
From 1er April 2024, MPs will be able to cut council funds used to challenge a law or government decision that targets judges. This is an attack on judicial independence. And a way to muzzle a counter-power. This is why, fundamentally, we are opposed to this change in the method of financing the Council1. The Barreau du Québec also opposes it, because of the “risks of undermining the independence of the Council”.
As Bill 26 directly concerned the Council, the latter produced a brief and asked to be heard by a parliamentary committee, like several other stakeholders. In a serious and serene debate, he would have been the first speaker heard by the deputies.
Minister Jolin-Barrette refused to hear the Council. Worse: he accuses him of wanting to “influence” and even “hinder” the work of parliamentarians”. He alleges that this would contravene the principle of separation of powers. “It’s not a power that will tell the other what to do,” said Minister Jolin-Barrette.
Hearing a Minister of Justice say such nonsense about the separation of powers sends shivers down my spine.
The separation of powers does not prevent the judiciary from making suggestions to the legislator in matters of justice. And it is not because one contradicts the Minister of Justice that one hinders the work of the National Assembly! It is perfectly normal for the Council to give its opinion to MEPs on a project which concerns it. It is even desirable.
When it comes to bad faith, the Minister of Justice did not stop there. He accuses the Council of drawing on public funds as one uses “in an open bar” to finance its “judicial guerrilla warfare” against Quebec. “The integrity of public funds is important,” said Minister Jolin-Barrette, who did not provide the slightest proof or the slightest serious argument to support his allegations.
First of all, the Council does not engage in “judicial guerrilla warfare”, it challenges a law to protect judicial independence. The Legault government wants the Council to deal solely with ethics (this part of its financing will continue to be paid to it via the consolidated fund). This is his view of things. But that is not what the Quebec law says. It gives three mandates to the Council: the ethics of judges, the training of judges, and the efficiency of justice. Under judicial efficiency, Council can/must uphold judicial independence, courts have ruled in litigation lost by Legault government2.
Protecting judicial independence is part of the Council’s mandate. When it was created in 1978, Minister Marc-André Bédard wanted the Council to become “the cornerstone of the independence of the judiciary”. 3.
The Council exceeded its budget by 30% (about $1.1 million) last year because it hired lawyers in two disputes with Quebec over the language qualifications of judges. Quebec lost the first litigation, the second is ongoing. There is no “open bar” here. Nor a problem of integrity of public funds, contrary to what the minister implies.
In a state of law, the Minister of Justice should not attempt to undermine public confidence in the judiciary just because one of his reforms is challenged in court.
3. National Assembly of Québec, Journal desdébats, November 17, 1978. This quotation is taken from the brief of the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec.