The primary function of law is to regulate social relations. It ensures cohesion between citizens and mutual adjustment of behaviour, making such behaviour predictable. Acting as a referral system, the function of law is therefore preventive.

In a society like Quebec, laws should form a system of shared references. They reflect certain shared values, allow or prohibit certain behaviours, and often provide an ideal image of society. In any case, we expect laws to put us on an equal footing with each other. Law is therefore the product of a set of social choices, a collective project. However, modern times are characterized by the transformation of personal values, if not of cultural and religious referents, by the redefinition of gender categories, by the complexification of family life, by the fragmentation of social practices, by the reconfiguration of social networks, by the diversification of personal and professional trajectories, by the multiplication of technologies, by the turmoil of collective structures, etc. Acknowledging such transformations allows to understand why there is such high demand of law and why there so many requests to adopt new laws.

It seems as though law is constantly lagging behind social reality. Many reforms have been carried out in recent decades. This demonstrates that it is possible to make significant legislative changes to ensure the continued alignment of legislation with society. The adoption, in 2014, of the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care, which directions will be debated again soon, can serve as a great example. Much work is being done today in ​​children’s rights and family law. But all of this shows that the future of the law demands continuous reforms.

Food for thought:

• To what extent is the law an essential aspect of life in society? Could we live without laws?
• How can we make sure that the law continuously adapts to the conditions of social life?
• Who should “guarantee” the law in our societies?
• What collective and urgent matters deserve new legislation in the near future?
• Among the laws already adopted, are there any that should be changed in the short or medium term?
• Does the participation of citizens in lawmaking contribute to increasing its legitimacy? How to enact such participation?

The function of justice is to facilitate the management of disputes between citizens. In an ideal world, it promotes the pacification of social relations. The judge’s role is then to re-establish social or economic relationships in order to make everyday life more rational, more predictable, and hence more just. To what extent do we succeed in such quest? 

Current debates tend to affirm the need to place citizens at the heart of the justice system. However, the courts are rarely seen as the preferred route for those grappling with a conflict or a dispute between them and someone else. The segmentation of jurisdictions and the complexity of procedures sometimes transform the courts into mazes. In family matters, proceedings may be brought before three different jurisdictions, not to mention the occasional lengthening delays. Few resources are invested in the development of new professional practices capable of meeting the needs of litigants. Justice remains to this day the only sector which, unlike Health or Education, has not undergone a comprehensive reform of its institutions.

It is often believed that the judicial apparatus is reluctant to change its practices, procedures and structures. However, the experience of the last decades shows that transformations are possible and beneficial for litigants. Some innovations indeed seem to meet the current expectations of the population: the creation of local justice centers, civil and family mediation, the offer of settlement conference, the development of restorative justice programs or alternative measures for adults in criminal matters.

The justice system responds to an elementary necessity of social life. The demand for justice is directly linked to the multiplicity of our interactions and the complexity of the society in which we live. This evidence highlights the collective dimension of justice and invites us to consider it as a real public service.

Food for thought:

• Is justice an individual experience or a collective reality?
• Under what conditions could justice be considered as a public service, like health and education?
• Beyond litigation and trials, what are the other services likely to meet the needs of citizens who encounter problems in their relations with one another?
• What new roles could legal practitioners play: notaries, lawyers, clerks, students in legal clinics, lawyers involved in community organizations, etc.?
• How to better integrate members of other professional orders in the settlement of disputes: professions such as social workers, psychologists, nurses, accountants, etc.?
• How to strengthen citizens’ trust in judges and in courts?
• How to adapt judicial institutions to the needs of citizens?

Changing the law is not an easy task. Yet sometimes laws are amended or adopted in response to public demand. Our elected representatives are thus led to attempt to respond to the pressures of public opinion. The decisions are made in the urgency. Of course, changing laws on a continuous basis is possible. But certain laws deserve a more complete and more global work. The tendency to want to solve immediate problems, without taking into account the priorities that await us in the future, is a major obstacle to aligning laws with social development and the expression of contemporary needs.

Scientific research can help define the terms and substance of legal reforms and of judicial practices. It seems destined to become an essential requirement to outline social priorities and contextualize the transformations of legal activities and judicial practices. Making better laws requires better insights into the social reality we intend to regulate. Learning about how other societies are tackling the same issues would allow us to learn from the most successful initiatives from other countries or jurisdictions.

Upcoming reforms of law or justice should therefore be envisioned with close collaboration between the area of research and the area of practice, as well as with some form of citizen participation. The possibility of this cooperation and the opportunity of this participation are evidenced throughout the world by the activities of bodies whose main mission is to submit to the government proposals for reform of law and justice, informed by scientific research, to better meet the needs of individuals and society. Such organizations exist in various countries, including Australia, England and the United States, as well as in a several Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia).

In Quebec, the Institut Québécois de Réforme du Droit et de la Justice (Quebec Law and Justice Reform Institute – IQRDJ) was created in 2018. It is an independent research organization. It meets the same needs as in the other jurisdictions: it works towards the continuous adaptation of the legislation and the judicial system to contemporary reality and to their greater accessibility for citizens.

Food for thought:

• What can be expected from an organization dedicated to research on law and justice reforms?
• Can research help shape the law and justice of the future?
• Under what conditions can research make law and justice more legitimate?
• Can research-informed reforms improve accessibility of law and justice?
• How can citizens contribute to research on legal and justice reforms?