Good day, your honour. I have been a lawyer in Quebec for about 37 years. Thus, I have met a lot of judges during my long career, in both civil and criminal cases.
When people look at the justice system, they do not necessarily know whether the crown prosecutors and defence lawyers have done their job well or poorly. What the public has an opinion about is the judge's decision. It is what is reported in the papers. It is all the people are aware of. As a general rule, people feel positively about the decisions of the provincial courts and the criminal courts, such as Quebec's Superior Court or Court of Appeal.
The problem begins with the Supreme Court, when decisions become more political. In general, judges' decisions are legal, rather than political, in nature. Be that as it may, when organized crime is involved, we hardly dare create any more mega-trials because the Supreme Court decided, in one instance, that evidence had not been disclosed. The rights of criminals are so strong that the Supreme Court's decision was almost anti-government. For that reason, I am interested in organized crime.
I am sure you have studied these decisions. They end up affecting all the other courts and they end up doing us a disservice. The Supreme Court's guidelines begin at the top and reach downward. A Supreme Court decision is like a law, in practice. The public has the impression that there is no actual decision involved, and that the judges are simply following the rules step by step. I do agree with you that in certain cases it is not easy.
I would like you to say whether, in your opinion, the Supreme Court—and I am not referring here to the appeal courts—sometimes makes political judgments. It is a tiresome phenomenon.