The divide

“A day of court costs $ 10,000. And 75% of court time is taken up by companies, but it’s you and I who pay for that. “

This somewhat discouraging news arrived at the very end of the interview, but it was not the only one brandished by Pierre Craig, ex-employee of Radio-Canada and ex-host of the show. The bill, but especially not a former journalist. Because the one who has more than 40 years of career and was president of the Professional Federation of Journalists of Quebec in 2013-2014 has not retired from the profession, and has really not said his last word.

It is at his place that he receives The duty, with a pile of documents at his side that gives him the appearance of an overworked lawyer when it comes to pleading an important case. If we believed in reincarnation, we could easily imagine that Pierre Craig was one in a previous life, he who for 13 years at the helm of The bill defended the widow, the orphan, and especially the citizen cheated by dishonest companies, or entangled in administrative mazes. Sometimes to the point of losing your mind, and a lot of money, along the way.

We do not receive 250,000 appeals to justice after so many years at the helm of a consumer program, public legal education and investigation without leaving traces. Since his departure from Radio-Canada in 2016 – and which he still does not want to discuss other than to repeat that it was “a question of principle” – Craig has associated his name and his enviable reputation with the cause. of the Clinique Juripop, of the project Justice for all, while making a return this fall to “the five-minute report” by collaborating on the new program Our 20s, at Télé-Québec.

And it is on the same network that he presents his first documentary, The trial, directed by Frédéric Nassif (The last night, Bye, The dictatorship of happiness), a true logical continuation of his long journalistic passion. According to him, the cause is heard: in the justice system in Quebec, “there is a wall of money”, and failing to bring it down, he would like to crack it, to repair the fracture with the ordinary citizen. . Hence the idea of ​​calling on experts and academics (Pierre Noreau, Normand Landry, Emmanuelle Bernheim) who have long reflected on the seriousness of the inaccessibility of the courts, but also by soliciting poignant testimonies from people. helpless in front of crooked entrepreneurs or number companies, some choosing to represent themselves.

Each year, more or less 50% of people involved in civil cases do so without a lawyer. Because as we hear in The trial, “How can someone who earns $ 25 an hour give $ 250 to a lawyer?” “

This is one of many reasons for indignation for Pierre Craig, and he knows full well that he is not alone in deploring the situation. Even the Honorable Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, first woman appointed judge of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in 1979, judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1987 until her retirement in 2002, recognizes with him “that culture of the Bar [du Québec] is an obstacle to justice ”. She nods in a firm but calm tone, Craig pointing out “that she’s going pretty far anyway” in her review. Because the question of pricing (“I know lawyers who charge up to $ 1000 an hour.”), The multiplication of procedures and deadlines, the refusal that lawyers have extended powers of intervention in organizations community and Community justice centers are all obstacles to fair justice.

The trial is also full of examples of human tragedies, of these contemporary variations of the fight between David and Goliath, with figures that set your back, including the $ 120,000 in legal costs for a woman victim of domestic violence, entangled in divorce proceedings which could have cost her more than double if she had not abdicated before the end in front of a spouse infinitely richer than herself. “I had tears in my eyes when she told me her story”, remembers Pierre Craig, he who has however heard many others of the same kind throughout his career.

How can someone making $ 25 an hour give a lawyer $ 250?

And it is precisely for people like her that the journalist seeks to shed light on the distortions of the system, which he enumerates in a tone that is sometimes downright sorry. “With its 3000 articles, the Civil Code is written in ancient Martian,” he said ironically, “and no one can understand himself in that. The gag orders? It is a way of using the justice system as a weapon of massive injustice, and it amazes me to see that justice can be used that way. As far as contracts are concerned, they are most often illegible, and I have already found a sentence that contained more than 125 words… ”

Pierre Craig recognizes that The trial pinpoints many problems, brings few solutions, even if some are mentioned here and there, such as flat rate pricing, a practice defended by Claude F. Archambault, the one we have nicknamed “the advocate of stars”. And it is not the only one. “If the Barreau du Québec accepts that lawyers from local justice centers can give legal opinions while being able to help people who appear alone in court – they break their mouths every time or so -, that would be a good start. We have excellent lawyers in Quebec, the legislation can be changed, it is just the will that is lacking. “

Even if he has no concrete project in his boxes, already well filled with a multitude of files and reports, Pierre Craig would like to continue to dig the documentary groove, a good pretext to discover new talented collaborators. ” InThe trial, which we shot in 35 days, we weren’t able to talk about the issue of deadlines, ”said the journalist, referring to the situation of some of the film’s protagonists, which has not improved in any way since the end of the film. filming. Or, we think back to Serge Galipeau, victim of a gag order launched by the owners of a dump that not only polluted his environment, but his entire existence: “We had a judgment, but we did not got justice. “You know what we say in English, he wishes to underline by way of conclusion:”Justice delayed is justice denied. ” »Count on Pierre Craig to remind him to whom it may concern.

Watch video