There will be a noticeable absence on Tuesday at the start of the consultation on Bill 92, that of the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau.
In the ranks of the opposition, this absence creates great unease. We suspect a conflict of personalities between the judge and the minister sponsoring the bill, Simon Jolin-Barrette, which could harm the outcome.
The judge, who also chairs the Judicial Council, was not invited by the government to participate in the two-day consultation on the creation of a court specializing in sexual and domestic violence.
This means that the judiciary will not be officially consulted on the content of this legislation which the judges will nevertheless have to apply when it comes into force.
After verification, Ms. Rondeau wished to present her views to parliamentarians. If we had invited her, she would have lent herself to the exercise.
Bill 92 aims to set up a specialized court to deal with cases involving sexual or domestic violence. Traditionally, it has been shown that victims of this type of assault tend to give up filing a complaint. The goal is to ensure that victims have confidence in the justice system, by creating a more secure environment for complainants at all stages of the process. We want them better informed and supported.
Since the bill was tabled, Justice Rondeau has publicly expressed significant reservations about this initiative. In September, she overtook Minister Jolin-Barrette, announcing that she was going to create a new division, ACCES, which will bring together all cases of a sexual nature or domestic violence and will be in place from the beginning of 2022.
Asked this week why the judge had not received an invitation card, Minister Jolin-Barrette simply said that the list of invited to the consultation was the result of negotiations between the parliamentary groups. He never justified the decision not to hear what she has to say about this bill which will directly target judges.
“The groups that are invited are negotiated between the parties, and there was an agreement between the parties which ensures that the list of groups has been established,” he said.
However, PQ and Liberals maintain that Justice Rondeau’s name was on the list of guests they wanted to hear and that it was the minister who ultimately vetoed it.
Liberal MP Isabelle Melançon recalls that whatever the demands of the opposition parties, “it is the Leader of the Government (Mr. Jolin-Barrette) who has the last word on the groups that are invited to the parliamentary committee”.
However, it would have been “natural”, “legitimate and well-founded” to hear the chief justice, adds PQ member Véronique Hivon, to the extent that judges are directly targeted by the future law. His presence could have been a “rare example” of a meeting between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, she argued in a telephone interview.
She also recalls that “the best interests of victims of sexual and conjugal violence must never leave us”, and that for the specialized court to emerge, it is important to oppose collaboration to confrontation.
Solidarity MP Christine Labrie fears that the “animosity” and “acrimony” that have become palpable between the judge and the minister “will derail the process” and jeopardize the creation of the tribunal. “You can sense the hostility between the two,” she observed in a telephone interview.
This is not the first time that Minister Jolin-Barrette and Judge Rondeau have crossed swords. In March, they publicly posted their dispute over whether or not to require judges to be bilingual. She defended the independence of the judiciary in this regard, while the minister maintained that bilingualism should not be compulsory for judges of the Court of Quebec.
The judge would have participated
Through her spokesperson, Judge Rondeau indicated on Friday that she “would have agreed to present to the members of the commission the vision of the Court of Quebec” on Bill 92.
Failing to have been able to do so in person, she is considering submitting a brief to the committee in which she would set out her thoughts on the subject.
She declined a request for an interview and did not want to comment further on the apparent coldness between the institution she heads and the government “out of respect for the principle of the separation of powers and considering its duty of reserve”.
Under Bill 92, judges will have to undergo training to better approach and manage cases of sexual or domestic violence. This is part of the “culture change” that Minister Jolin-Barrette wants to impose on magistrates.
But Justice Rondeau believes that the measures contained in the bill should not fall to a court. She sees it as a fundamental issue for the administration and independence of justice. She fears a breach in the neutrality and impartiality of the court, also recalling that judges already receive training, including on the issue of “the reality of violence in a conjugal and sexual context”. Conclusion: it does not exclude the idea of taking legal action to challenge its legitimacy.
The consultation on Bill 92 will be brief, limited to two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, giving the floor to about fifteen speakers. We will be able to hear, in particular, organizations for the defense or accommodation of victims, police services, the Barreau du Québec, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP), as well as the chair of the committee that drafted the report “Rebâtir la confidence ”, Élizabeth Corte. The creation of a specialized tribunal was its main recommendation.