I spent this morning with our new Community Council in the Law Society's Portrait Room (my appreciation to the LSUC for the use of the space). Welcomed by the Chair of the LCO Board of Governors, Larry Banack, on behalf of the Board and by Chris Bredt, Law Society rep on the Board, on behalf of the Law Society, the members were keen to offer their ideas about how they could contribute to the LCO's work and ways in which the LCO could enhance its work in our second mandate.
The LCO established the Community Council to give additional force to our commitment to working with a wide variety of communities who are affected by our work and who can add value to our work. It's important to us that we know how law affects people, what people need from the law, what it's like to use the law as a tool in court or to enforce it. The Council's members are diverse. These original 12 members were selected from the some 40 responses to our call for interest in serving on the Council. We will add other members, perhaps with the assistance of our current group.
We hope that Council members can assist us with our outreach and consultations. They might provide the names of groups or individuals who would be interested in hearing about the LCO or who may want to tell us what they need from the law. They might let us know about people who can bring experiential or other knowledge to our projects and in some cases help facilitate the consultations. They can spread the word, talk up our reports and generally open up space where we can expand our reach.
This group represents many interests and comes with many skills - of which we intend to take advantage (in the nicest way!). The groups with which some have been involved have given considerable thought to their consultation processes. We have learned a great deal over the first mandate about consultations of various kinds, but as we reach the end of our current projects, before we begin the consultation phase of any new projects, we want to review what we have done and consider how we might approach consultations differently in the future. This isn't to say that we are unhappy about how we have undertaken them so far, just that we're open to adding other approaches to our own "library" of consultation processes. It would be terrific to bring in a few people to discuss with our project heads how their organizations have approached consultations, even if sometimes in a different context or for a different purpose.
We discussed why we consult: of course, to hear the views of various constitutencies, but there are other reasons. As one person pointed out, it allows for correction of errors; as another said, the trick is to go from consultation to empowerment. Someone else mentioned the effectiveness of our large project consultations and feedback opportunities which allow for an interative process and not just a one-off chance to give input. In their own organizations, some members have developed consultation principles or a formalized process of consultation, both methods of making sure that consultations are meeting the objectives set for them. In our case, we of course want to learn about how the law at issue in a particular project affects people, how it might be changed to be more effective; however, we also consult for a more amorphous reason, one to which we can contribute in only a minimal way but which is nevertheless important and that is the view that law reform should be a participatory activity, something that adds to "deliberative democracy", an idea promoted as an ethical law reform practice by Marcia Neave, now Justice Marcia Neave of the Victoria (Australia) Court of Appeal, when she was President of the Victorian Law Reform Commission.
One member in particular offered expertise in seeking out new funding and collaborations with other organizations, allowing us to extend our resources. We'll accept! Others have different backgrounds and skills they are willing to share.
We talked about assessing the performance of a law commission, not an easy task. There are many factors relevant to whether a law commission has been successful. One obvious one, sometimes long in coming, if it comes at all, is that government adopt the law reform agency's recommendations. As one member pointed out, though, it isn't enough that government adopt a recommendation, if they do not adopt other related recommendations: the result might be that it makes things worse or at least does not achieve the purpose of the commission's reform objective. Another member suggested that at the end of a particular period (say the end of this second mandate), the LCO revisit its reports and see what has happened with each one.
We briefly considered other ways members might contribute: by bringing law reform proposals or commenting on other proposals or by giving their views on documents we've prepared in projects, for example. I anticipate that I will call on individual members as their backgrounds seem particularly apropos, or heads of projects will consult with them on project consultations.
And then we reached the big issues! What does justice mean? what is "access to justice"? what is the role of law? is there an undue reliance on law for obtaining justice? Do people appreciate that the law can change?
My thanks to the Community Council members for giving up their morning to help us do better. We have just begun to make them an integral part of the LCO's process.
