I'll speak generally in terms of all our prosecutions, because we prosecute all federal offences. I'll ask Erin to comment specifically on environmental prosecutions.
Chapter 15 of our deskbook is titled “The Decision to Prosecute”. It sets out two criteria, first as to whether there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. Under that heading, the prosecutor reviews the evidence, looks at each of the constituent elements of an offence—what acts have to have been committed, and what the level of intent has to be—looks at what evidence is available and admissible under each of those headings, and determines whether there is sufficient evidence that there is a reasonable prospect. It's not certainty, but it's more than 50%, if you like; it's a reasonable prospect.
Having done that, the prosecutor then turns to determining whether it's in the public interest for the prosecution to go forward and, under that heading, considers a number of factors that one would expect would inform the public interest—the nature of the offence, the age of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, all the circumstances of the offence—and determines whether the case should go forward.
Of the cases that are referred to us for prosecution, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving you a percentage or a number, because these things are exercises of discretion that take place in the front lines every day. Certainly we in Ottawa aren't made aware of each of the cases that a prosecutor comes to look at on a daily basis, but I would say that most cases brought to us are approved for prosecution.
Erin, please....