Evidence of meeting #76 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trial.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
You have made a difference here today, I can tell you that. I truly believe that.
As an Individual
We are here to make a difference and with all the support here, maybe we can make a difference.
As an Individual
The only thing I would add is that there should be an education package to let people know what being a juror is. A lot of people don't even know what that process is, what that looks like. As Patrick said, when you go to the courthouse and go through the first step of the process, you don't know what's coming next; there's no kind of manuscript or direction of where you're going next, who you're going to be talking to, etc. I had neighbours come up to me afterwards saying the same thing: how do I get out of it? What did you go through? I would just reiterate to them, “Relax, it's okay. It's a good process to go through. They'll walk you through it and if you're chosen, then you're expected to do your civic duty.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. McKinnon is going to go?
Okay, Mr. McKinnon, go ahead, please.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you all for sharing your experiences with us today.
Your words are powerful and important. I doubt that through words alone we'll ever be able to fully grasp what you've gone through. I thank you for your service.
Studies have shown that jurors experience different stages of stress during different stages of a trial, perhaps when you're summoned, during the trial, and at various junctures through the trial and afterwards. Is there any one point where you think we need to give the most attention?
Anyone can answer.
As an Individual
Definitely when the trial ends, people need to figure out a way to get over the anxiety of the trial and the stress and the trauma of it. But during the trial, when you go home every day, you're told you may speak to no one about this. So you can't speak to your husband about what happened; you can't even describe how you feel because in that way you might have to disclose something that you're not allowed to disclose. If there was, in any way, a court-appointed psychological counsellor.... Maybe for me, it's at day ten, but for somebody else it's at day five, so at the end of the day I can go and say, this was a particularly hard day today. The evidence was very gruesome. Before I go home, could I talk to you for a little while and tell you how I feel and ask you how I can not take this home with me?
As an Individual
At the end of the trial, it was so abrupt. One minute I was reading a guilty verdict to five individuals, putting them away for 25 years plus another 25, and then the very next minute the court doors opened, and I was going home. Think about that.
As an Individual
It did end with an abrupt stop. It was rather shocking that there was no debrief. There was no standardization of dismissal. It just seemed to be incredibly abrupt and convoluted, literally “pack your bags and off you go”.
Our trial was a little bit unusual in the sense that the justice came to our jury room and had a cup of tea with us, but that's very unusual. Even then, that wasn't a dismissal; it was just to say, “You all went through a really long trial, and I just want to say thanks.” It was literally a handshake. That didn't help me. We've heard from a lot of people who say you feel like the rug is just pulled out from underneath you. You're walking out of one very tight vacuum into another, and you're in this zombie-like state, just lost, because you're suddenly back in the world. You're back in the world after having been through this. Tina said it earlier today. It's like a plane crash. You've gone through this thing that you can't explain to somebody else, but you feel as though you have to.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
What I'm hearing here is that there's really a need for ongoing counselling during the trial, which is accessible to jurors on request; as well as perhaps post-trial follow-up, a debrief, to evaluate the circumstances to perhaps see if further counselling is needed; and then, of course, counselling to carry on beyond that.
Would that pretty much cover what you think we need?
As an Individual
I think certainly post-trial is where it is most necessary. For some people, the intensity and the crisis occur much later. For me it deepened, and like a lot of people, I just decided to bury myself in work, bury myself in distraction that would allow it to go away. I hoped it would just ebb, and it didn't. I followed my own worst personal advice, and it intensified. Unfortunately, when I looked for an apparatus, there was nothing there.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'm wondering if having someone to talk to during the trial would tend to smooth out the transition, to relieve the pressure, perhaps, on an ongoing basis, so that perhaps at the end of the trial, the stress would not be so great in the first place.
Is that a fair guess?
As an Individual
I agree with that, especially in my case. There were days when it was just overwhelmingly traumatic for me, especially the days when there was video evidence, because they played it over and over again. Maybe if I had had the opportunity to speak to someone at the end of that day, the end result might not have been so bad. I can't say that for sure, but I just feel that maybe it would have alleviated some of what happened at the end.
As an Individual
I believe that something during a trial would be a great asset as well. Dealing with the prosecutors as they go through the process.... They want you to relate to the victim. They want to build that victim's personality. You see the videos. You see who they are in real life. And then, wham. Here's the evidence. Here's the other stuff. As you said, on that day, when you get that wham, it certainly would be helpful to have somebody to talk to and debrief, to normalize it or try to digest it in some way.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
You can't talk even with the other jurors about anything, right?
As an Individual
I think the judge might be able to make that call though, because the judge is watching the jurors. I think he can recognize when he needs to pull a short day, and maybe that's the time to do it. The defence and the prosecutor stick these graphic photos, videos, and testimonies in front of us, and they know they're disturbing us. They know it; it's part of their game sometimes.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to each of you for having the courage to come to Ottawa today to share your story. As Mr. Nicholson said, I think everyone around this table right now is just in awe of what you've gone through and what you've had to suffer through just for simply doing your civic duty.
None of you are professionals in the justice system. Like every juror across this country, you're ordinary Canadians, plucked out of your ordinary lives and called to do something extraordinary, and you've had to go through a lot. I really want to start off by recognizing that. I truly hope that what we hear today and as this study continues leads us to a place where we make those firm recommendations, those much-needed recommendations. I want to again thank you.
Speaking of recommendations, that's ultimately where we want this report to end up, making recommendations to the Minister of Justice. Yes, we realize that under our constitution, the administration of justice does fall under provincial jurisdiction, but we should note that we as federal legislators are responsible for drafting amendments to the Criminal Code, that very same criminal code that contains section 627, which allows judges to provide supports to disabled jurors.
We are responsible for the federal penitentiaries where the offenders who receive guilty verdicts in these gruesome trials often end up. We just completed a study trying to find avenues whereby the federal government can try to impose some sort of a national standard on access to justice, particularly through legal aid.
All of you have testified about the need for strong national standards. In the interest of arriving at a clear recommendation, I was wondering if each of you could just take some time to give us your ideas on what you think that could eventually be and look like.
I'll start with you, Mr. Farrant, please.
As an Individual
I've heard from so many jurors, former jurors across the country, who have had to look over the proverbial fence at the province next to them, which has a program for post-trial support, and they're sitting in their own home province and saying, “How come in that province, they have access to post-trial care, and in this province there's nothing? I've been through a triple homicide. I can't leave my house. I can't look my husband in the face. I can't go to work. I can't even play with my kids, and I'm devastated.”
I've heard that too many times. I think a national standard and a strong one that doesn't set limits on the amount of counselling that's available to the individual, that says it's the covenant between the clinician and the juror, the patient, that determines the length of counselling required to get that person back to.... I have PTSD. It's my new normal. It's what I am now. I don't beat myself up about it anymore, but it's just going to be a part of me.
I'm not able to do the things that I used to be able to do. I'm not able to go out in public the same way I used to before this. In some cases it's not to return to your life, but it's to allow you to keep moving forward.
Is the Ontario program the baseline for this? Is eight counselling sessions enough for an individual? I was barely able to articulate what was wrong with me in eight sessions, let alone begin to develop coping mechanisms to move forward. I'm well past eight sessions.
Again, I think it's incumbent on us to create a program that is universal for all Canadians serving in a jury no matter where they live in this country.
As an Individual
I feel that across every province and territory we should all be equal. We as jurors, no matter which side of the province or country we live in, are providing the same service. We should actually have the same amount of access to mental health support for everybody across our country. Not everybody will use it, because every individual is different. Some might need eight weeks. One or two might need four weeks, and some might not need any. But we need a standard. We need to draw the line somewhere and make a standard and start from that point. Then we can fine-tune it from there, I believe. For now I think we need there to be equal across the country, because we're all doing the same job no matter where we live.
