Justice Committee on June 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 110 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and to subsection 4(4) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the committee is beginning its study on the proposition of nominating Mr. George Dolhai to the position of director of public prosecutions.

Good morning to you.

Before we commence, there are a number of normal reminders for everyone.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. We have committee members on Zoom and in person. For those in the room, to prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback, you all have your earpieces. Please ensure that they are totally away from the microphone, whether you're speaking or not. If you are not using them, please keep them unplugged. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption.

I want to welcome our witness for today. From the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, George Dolhai is the deputy director of public prosecutions.

As is the norm with this committee, we welcome you here and thank you for coming. You have up to five minutes for your opening remarks.

[George Dolhai, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions]

Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to meet with the committee today to discuss my nomination as director of public prosecutions, or DPP. I want to thank the Attorney General and the selection committee for placing their trust in me and referring my nomination to the committee today.

I'm honoured to be in this home to Canadian democracy that rests on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation and to commit to continue on the journey of reconciliation as a matter of profound respect and thanks for the care the first nations, Métis and Inuit have bestowed on the lands in which we all live together in Canada, and to make a commitment to do what I can, if you give me that opportunity, to contribute to a system of criminal justice built upon a just relationship with the indigenous peoples of Canada.

Allow me to say a few words about myself. I was born and raised in Hamilton, Ontario, where my mother and father had emigrated after being welcomed by Canada as refugees from the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. My parents came with nothing and instilled in my sister and me the importance and the duty to work hard, the value of family, and the obligation always to help and respect others.

I attended McMaster University and then the law school of the University of Western Ontario, where I worked at the student legal clinic and soon came to learn that law exists to help ordinary people trying to make do and not for the lawyers who are helping them.

After practising civil litigation on Bay Street, I attended the University of Cambridge to complete an LL.M. and determined that my heart was in criminal law.

I was offered a job as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice. I loved and still love being a prosecutor, including in jury trials and appeals before Ontario's Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court of Canada.

When an opportunity arose to work in Ottawa for five months to do Supreme Court of Canada criminal coordination, my wife and three-month-old daughter and I moved here, and during the next 30 years, my wife and I welcomed another daughter. Professionally I worked in the human rights law section, providing advice with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code and the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I also helped draft two incarnations of the criminal organization legislation and the national security legislation that ultimately culminated in the Anti-terrorism Act 2001 after the attacks of September 11.

When the PPSC was created, I joined as one of the two deputy directors and had the opportunity to create the foundations and practices of the new PPSC. Through my time as deputy director, I've been responsible for national security matters and have provided the consent in almost all the cases on behalf of the Attorney General for the 79 prosecutions that have been launched in respect of terrorism offences and the 47 terrorism peace bonds, as well as overseeing the prosecutions that then ensued.

I have always been very involved in handling financial matters and carrying out other management responsibilities. I think it really helped to prepare me for the role of DPP and deputy attorney general of Canada.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Act prescribes the DPP's role when it comes to the management of prosecutions. Responsibility for the operation of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, is entrusted to the DPP, who manages the service under and on behalf of the Attorney General. The DPP must have a thorough understanding of criminal law and ensure that the service carries out its duty to the Attorney General and Canadians.

As provided by the DPP Act, the DPP needs to be able to provide clear guidelines to prosecutors regarding their exercise of discretion and allow the Attorney General to be notified of prosecutions that raise issues of general interest in sufficient time for him or her to react if they choose. The exception to this, of course, is with respect to the Canada Elections Act.

As deputy attorney general, the DPP also has to be a good ambassador, playing an important role in educating their provincial counterparts and other participants in the justice system in Canada and abroad.

As deputy head of the PPSC, the DPP has another role that is equally important: managing the service in a fiscally responsible way, while ensuring the well-being of its employees.

In the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, I am privileged to work with people who are dedicated, fair and ethical. These include the persons undertaking vital administrative tasks such as arranging court dates and preparing disclosure to send to the accused, Crown witness coordinators in the north who support victims of violence as they try to navigate the court process, and paralegals, prosecutors and those in corporate services.

I believe I can fulfill the functions of the DPP and look forward to the opportunity, should you permit me, to support and lead everyone who works in the prosecution service as they do their part to help keep Canadians safe and uphold the rule of law and constitutional protections.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We will, per the norm, go for the six-minute round.

We will commence with Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Congratulations, sir, on your nomination and thank you for your appearance before the committee today.

I was pleased to be part of a government that created the Public Prosecution Service and the role of director. It's been interesting to watch the evolution of that organization.

I have only six minutes, so I'm going to try to ask my questions kind of tightly, and hopefully I'll get a tight response.

For the role of the Public Prosecution Service in prosecutions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, my understanding is that the service is responsible for prosecutions under the act in all provinces and territories, except Quebec and New Brunswick, where the RCMP is the police jurisdiction.

Is that correct?

[George Dolhai]

That's correct. In Quebec, we also prosecute when the RCMP, in their federal capacity, are the police force. Otherwise, for all other police forces, theirs are prosecuted by the province.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

In August 2020, the director of public prosecutions issued a directive to prosecutors, when dealing with possession cases of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to essentially not prosecute possession cases unless it was the most serious case and the cases involved a public safety concern.

What impact, if any, would that directive have had on those jurisdictions? Were we behind those other jurisdictions of Quebec and New Brunswick, or would they have followed suit from that directive?

[George Dolhai]

Each of those jurisdictions has its own policies and guidance with respect to that. They determine what is appropriate for themselves.

Ours was one that was crafted specifically with consultations with the provincial prosecution services, Health Canada and the police, among others. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was directly consulted and supportive, as were other care professionals involved. I know that Quebec and New Brunswick have slightly different policies.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

As you know, we're dealing with an opioid crisis right now. Deaths and overdoses have skyrocketed. Organized crime is involved at every level, of course. Whereas there used to be mandatory jail time for producing, importing and exporting schedule I drugs, for example, there's been legislation, Bill C-5, that means there is no longer a mandatory sentence for those charges.

On the issue of possession, can you maybe illustrate where, if there is such a thing as a typical case, a charge would be brought now that we're a few years post that directive? For what type of drug particularly, and what type of scenario, if you could give one, would you expect that a charge would be brought?

[George Dolhai]

Absolutely.

The guideline to our prosecutors is very specific. Although some people have interpreted it as “don't prosecute unless”, it's very clear that it places directly the public safety question first and foremost but also recognizes that there's an enormous health component to this question.

The sorts of scenarios that it contemplates specifically and that I can give as examples would be ones where youth are targeted or used as part of the possession. It might be where persons in positions of trust are involved—for example, in an institution like a prison—or where firearms are involved, or small communities. It specifically recognizes that it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. There are small communities for whom any drug coming in where possession is involved needs to be prosecuted in order to allow that community to exercise its ability to stem a tide or prevent it from coming. It recognizes that there are a number of situations in which prosecution of simple possession is still very appropriate.

We've moved from 10,000 files down to 3,000 files. We still do simple possession prosecutions in this country as a prosecution service, but we do it when one of those circumstances is involved.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, sir.

Acknowledging now that cannabis and marijuana possession charges are largely a thing of the past, what typically would be the top three drugs in cases in which charges of possession are being laid?

[George Dolhai]

I would say they're fentanyl, methamphetamine and benzodiazepines. Cocaine is always associated with those as well, unfortunately. Cocaine is being laced with benzos and fentanyls. The combination of all of those is a terrible, terrible combination.

Those are the typical drugs.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

The sign says my time is up.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Dolhai.

We will now go to Mr. Mendicino for up to six minutes.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Dolhai, congratulations on your nomination. You have had a distinguished career, underpinned by the values, in your own words, of hard work, but also a real commitment to the law, which is a vehicle to serve people, including to protect our communities. I listened very carefully to the outline of your own journey through the PPSC—starting at its inception; taking on a senior role; contributing to the drafting of national security legislation, in what ultimately became the Anti-terrorism Act; and overseeing prosecutions, including one in which I was involved, the Toronto 18.

I raise that case because it was a seminal case. It was a case that involved a conspiracy around a self-radicalized domestic terror cell. It implicated a number of different agencies, not only the PPSC and conventional law enforcement but equally intelligence agencies. I raise this in the current climate because one of the important debates that is occurring right now is how we use intelligence and convert intelligence into admissible evidence for the purposes of prosecuting individuals who have been charged under national security provisions.

Having had the benefit of seeing Bill C-70, and understanding that it is currently making its way through Parliament, can you, in your own extensive experience, shed some light on how we can improve the protocols around taking intelligence and converting it into evidence for the purposes of prosecuting individuals who are charged under national security provisions?

[George Dolhai]

The issue of intelligence and evidence is one that's been at the forefront for a long time. It's a very complicated one, and as the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians recognized in their recent report, it has its own requirements for study and consideration.

I can speak to the operational co-operation that exists and the efforts that are made. Over the last number of years, significant efforts have been made by the RCMP and CSIS and other members of the intelligence community to do everything possible to ensure that materials that are relevant to a possible threat to the security of the country, to the safety of individuals, to our well-being and our institutions, are shared in a timely fashion and are shared in a way that's very clear, so that they are something that the police, when they receive them, know what they can do with them and what they can't do with them. That's a significant element because oftentimes in the past there have been circumstances in which the two institutions work closely but have such different focuses and mandates that the question of when and what it can be used for required clarification. That's now come.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Those protocols will be strengthened, in my opinion, by Bill C-70. I want to focus on part 2 to Bill C-70, which would amend the Security of Information Act to, among other things, create a number of new offences, as follows:

(a) committing an indictable offence at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with a foreign entity;

There would be some elements of foreign interference.

(b) knowingly engaging in surreptitious or deceptive conduct at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity for a purpose [that is] prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State or being reckless as to whether the conduct is likely to harm Canadian interests; and

(c) engaging in surreptitious or deceptive conduct, at the direction of or in association with a foreign entity, with the intent to influence, among other things, the exercise of a democratic right in Canada.

I've summarized those offences.

Do you believe, Mr. Dolhai, that those additional provisions will help provide additional tools to law enforcement, including the PPSC, for the purposes of protecting our national security?

[George Dolhai]

The question of particular legislation before Parliament is not one I can really comment upon. What I can comment upon is that the issues of foreign interference and foreign-directed activities have become much more predominant within the national security files that I see, and it's an area that continues to evolve and becomes much more challenging all the time in prosecuting. Whatever Parliament passes, we will certainly apply and pursue with the police and assist them in ensuring that they can gather evidence.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Is it safe to say that this will be a priority for the PPSC going forward, namely to ensure that our institutions, specifically our democratic institutions, are safe from foreign interference?

[George Dolhai]

Absolutely, it's a priority. In the national security realm, there are two areas of priority that are overwhelming. That one and the absolute blossoming—and I don't mean that in a positive way; it's a terrible way—of extremist ideologies that are using the Internet as a way to recruit and activate persons across the country.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

In my brief remaining time, this committee recently concluded or is in the process of concluding and drafting a study to combat anti-Semitism. A number of Jewish Canadians came forward and expressed concerns about the absence of the prosecution of anti-Semitic hate crime.

Are you committed to ensuring that prosecutors have the training that is necessary and to removing any unnecessary barriers to ensure the prosecution of anti-Semitic hate crime and hate crime generally to protect communities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Can we get a brief answer? The time is up.

[George Dolhai]

Hate crime is something that the provinces do, but certainly we work with them, in co-operation. That's the commitment I'd make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Mr. Fortin for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being with us this morning, Mr. Dolhai.

I'm going to pick up where Mr. Mendicino left off. In recent weeks, the committee has indeed heard from people on the issue of anti-Semitism in Canada. We then heard from people on the issue of Islamophobia. Had we wanted to keep studying those issues, we would have heard about all manner of situations fuelled by hate. It's something we have to deal with. Just this week, the RCMP reported an increase in hate crimes in Canada yet again and questioned whether it had all the tools the crisis demands.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. As I understand it, you have quite a bit of leadership experience at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, first as deputy director and then as acting director. In your view, does the PPSC currently have the tools it needs to address the rise in hate crimes? If not, what tools does it need?

[George Dolhai]

Thank you for your question.

Many tools are now available in the Criminal Code to deal with terrorism offences, especially those in which hatred is incited to carry out the act of terrorism. A number of prosecutions are under way in cases where a key element is the use of the Internet to create a climate of hate, especially in relation to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

The Criminal Code already allows the PPSC to tackle that problem, which is much more serious now, right across the country. A recent prosecution that comes to mind is the case in London, Ontario, involving the attack on the Afzaal family.