Justice Committee on June 13th, 2024

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

As you know, committee members don't have a lot of time, but something I often wonder about is how to define hate. One of the bills the committee is eventually going to study sets out a definition, but, in a few words, could you tell me what you think would be an appropriate definition of hate?

If you can't, could you tell me whether there's a way to improve how hate is understood and defined under the Criminal Code?

[George Dolhai]

Yes. However, the prosecution of hate offences falls under provincial jurisdiction. Under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act, the focus is on ideology that advocates hate. Those ideologies tend to target “the other”, whether it's an individual, a group or people who believe in an ideology that seeks to exclude from Canadian society and thus attack that “other”. The definition is based on the idea of ideology.

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

Currently, section 319 of the Criminal Code prohibits the promotion of hate and anti-Semitism but includes an exemption. It is a reasonable defence if the opinion of the person accused of either of those offences is based on a religious text. I'm paraphrasing.

Do you have an opinion on that? The Criminal Code contains a provision that allows hate crimes if the person's opinion is based on a religious text or sincerely held religious belief. Is that a good thing or not?

[George Dolhai]

I can't comment on a bill before Parliament, especially since those prosecutions fall under the jurisdiction of services outside the PPSC.

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

Thank you.

I think I have a minute or two left. Can you share any good—or bad—memories you have of working on cases in Quebec?

[George Dolhai]

Are you asking me to talk about my experience with Quebec cases involving drug or national security matters?

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

I realize that the federal government's role is limited.

[George Dolhai]

Thanks to my colleagues in the Quebec regional office, my experience with Quebec's Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions was fantastic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

That's great. Thank you.

We now go to Ms. Blaney for six minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Dolhai, I want to congratulate you on your nomination.

I heard a lot of what you were saying earlier in response to some of the members who have already asked questions. The committee is currently concluding its study on the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Canada. We all know that the outcomes have been incredibly painful.

Can you please comment on the low levels of successful prosecutions for hate crimes? Is this a problem with the laws Canada currently has, or are there other causes impeding successful prosecutions?

[George Dolhai]

Respectfully, I'm not able to comment on the prosecutions that are conducted by the provincial prosecution services, which are the ones that conduct them—except in the north, where we conduct them. We have not had hate crime prosecutions in the northern territories.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I have another question. We just passed the third reading in the House of Commons of Bill C-332, which is now on its way to the Senate. Once this bill is passed, it will make coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence.

As the new national director of public prosecutions, what actions will you be taking to prepare the prosecution service to handle these new cases?

[George Dolhai]

As with any changes in the law, we will be providing training to our folks, but I must say that intimate partner violence is a priority for us. In the north, we have taken steps already—and this will be part and parcel of those steps—to augment the capacity we have in order to provide greater support to the victims through the Crown witness coordinators. We'll also be providing a continuity of prosecutors, so that they're dealing with the same people as they go along what is an incredibly traumatic and incredibly foreign process for any Canadian to be going through, especially when they're going through it with respect to something as personal, as hurtful and as traumatic as intimate partner violence.

We've formed specialized teams, as well, to review and consider what we are doing and what we should do differently in these cases. If the legislation is passed, we will certainly focus on it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

We've talked to people who have gone through these experiences. Of course, before, they couldn't trigger this coercive and controlling behaviour as a criminal offence. That's what we're hoping to see fundamentally change.

You talked about training and the work you've done already. Could you indicate to us what the best practices are and what you think the initial steps would be moving forward? Of course, the concern is always building trust, so that people feel that the process will be followed when they come forward.

In terms of building those relationships, what were the best practices?

[George Dolhai]

Our first and best practice was the creation of the Crown witness coordinators. It's having persons who are not lawyers, whose only function—and it's a critical function—is to focus on those witnesses and be the person they reach out to. That's the person they can ask whatever question of and who will be with them as they're going through the process and will be with them only for that purpose, not for purposes of particularly structuring the evidence and doing other things. In order to support them, that's probably the best practice that we've initiated.

In addition, we've done training, and there's more training to do around understanding the dynamics that arise here. The area of violence against women continues to be one where there seems to be some reluctance in various quarters, and that can also occur in any organization as well, due to a lack of understanding of what those dynamics are and how they play out.

I'm very pleased to say that one of the prosecutions we undertook was a national security prosecution that went directly to this issue. It was the prosecution in Toronto where there was an attack on persons who worked in a setting providing massage services; they were brutally attacked and there was murder and attempted murder by a person who was motivated by the incel ideology, an ideology that's directly focused on women as the targets. The recognition of that being an ideology was critical.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Previous to this I worked with newcomer women, and I found them particularly vulnerable, along with indigenous women, so to follow up on that last response, in the work you have done, what are the key things you will take in terms of reflecting on training and working to address the needs of those particular groups of women?

[George Dolhai]

A key element is the extent to which we can draw upon the experience of those who have dealt with those persons as witnesses while allowing the voices of those who've gone through the system and are prepared to speak to us to be heard by our prosecutors. Until you hear a story being told about what was experienced and all the reluctance and pressures that came to bear, whether they're familial or societal, in terms of coming forward, it's not as real. You need to make it real to people.

The first time I remember a person who was testifying about a very traumatic attack on her, she told me she focused on a crack in the table, because that was her focus. That was what was going to get her through what was a terribly traumatic experience in recounting what had happened. It's doing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to our second round, with five minutes to Mr. Van Popta, please.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolhai, for being with us here today. Congratulations on your nomination and soon-to-be appointment. I understand that this is the last hurdle, or perhaps the second-to-last hurdle, for you to overcome. Congratulations on a job well done so far.

I'm going to follow up on a question that my colleague Mr. Moore asked about the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. I want to focus particularly on what happened in my home province of British Columbia with the pilot project whereby the federal government gave an exemption to British Columbia under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It's a three-year pilot project, but a year into it, it was clear that it was a failed project, and it has been rolled back substantially now. Again, the province and the federal government are working together.

I wonder if you could elaborate on that, because prior to that, I understand there was de facto decriminalization in any event, not only in British Columbia but across the country, for possession of small amounts for personal use.

What big difference did the exemption order make, and now that it has been rolled back, what are prosecutions going to look like going forward?

[George Dolhai]

There is a perception that there was decriminalization, in fact, of simple possession, but as I indicated, I think the statistics do not that bear that out. In fact, we continued to prosecute simple possessions across the country, as did Quebec and New Brunswick, but only in those circumstances where one of the other complicating factors was present, something that affected public safety.

In British Columbia in particular, however, there were very few of those prosecutions that went forward. There were a few of those instances that were brought to us where there were public safety elements.

I think the change in the exemption will primarily affect what police can and can't do with respect to their interventions. Their decision as to whether or not that translates into a prosecution is another matter, but they will be in a position, I think, to be able to have interventions in a different way from how they were intervening while the exemption was in place. In many ways, they are the organization that is on the front lines. They are the ones with the biggest footprint with respect to dealing with persons who are subject to these substance use disorders.

Whether that translates into prosecutions, I don't know, because, again, there are many avenues to address the underlying problem, and we've had tremendous success with respect to many of them, including such things as drug treatment courts.

It will depend on the police and their decisions as to what they refer.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

It also depends on your office, doesn't it? You have said that you give clear directions to prosecutors about how prosecutions are to be undertaken or even which cases are to be prosecuted. To what extent does the prosecution office in British Columbia rely on directions from your office?

[George Dolhai]

I would like to think that they rely entirely on them, because no person and no prosecutor, no matter how well intentioned, is their own determinant. We're all persons who have a responsibility to others and report to others and, ultimately, as DPP, I would report to the Attorney General, but there is scope for local practice, both within larger and smaller communities and from province to province.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

You said that you report to the Attorney General. You wrote recently about the Shawcross principle and the rule of law. Central to these principles, of course, is the independence of the prosecution service.

Given that, in Canada, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General are one and the same person, how does that affect prosecutorial independence?

[George Dolhai]

The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General being one and the same person, in my experience, has never affected prosecutorial independence. I've had the pleasure of dealing with a number of attorneys general since we were created, and I have never found that there has been an issue with respect to the manner in which they approach the attorney general function. All of them have been scrupulous in the way they approach it.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

My understanding is that in the United Kingdom, those two roles might be separated. I don't know if that's always the case or—