Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 15 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the ancestral, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, and I express gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to continue its study on the review of the Fisheries Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely via Zoom.

Before we continue, I would like to ask that all in-person participants consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, particularly the interpreters. You'll also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen: floor, English or French.

For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom—there are a lot of them today—please use the “raise hand” function.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience.

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses.

We have Shannon O'Connor, deputy director of public prosecutions, and Emma Beauchamp, director and general counsel, both from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

We also have Hannah Rogers, director general, environmental enforcement, from the Department of the Environment.

We are going to start with opening statements from the witnesses for five minutes or less, beginning with Ms. O'Connor.

[Shannon O'Connor, Deputy Director, Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

I am pleased to appear before you today to provide information about the role of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, in prosecuting offences under the Fisheries Act and its regulations.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the land on which I am speaking is located on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation, which has been present in this place since time immemorial.

I will start by taking a little time to talk about the PPSC. It is a national, independent and accountable prosecuting authority whose main objective is to prosecute federal offences. As set out in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under and on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada in, among other things, initiating and conducting prosecutions, advising law enforcement agencies and issuing guidelines to prosecutors on the conduct of prosecutions.

The PPSC has approximately 600 federal prosecutors and several hundred private sector agents. It has regional offices in all major cities in Canada, and in the three territories. It also has dedicated regulatory and economic crimes prosecutions teams across the country who prosecute offences pursuant to over 75 regulatory and economic statues and regulations, including the Fisheries Act.

Along with conducting prosecutions, PPSC prosecutors provide advice and support to regulatory enforcement agencies through training initiatives and bilateral meetings. Prosecutors also provide advice to our regulatory partners at the investigation stage and receive support from them at the trial stage. This regular collaboration with our regulatory partners promotes dialogue and improves investigations and prosecutions.

Prosecutors contribute directly to the safety and security of Canadians. They play a key role in the criminal justice system by serving a truth-seeking function in criminal proceedings, as the role of the prosecutor is not to seek a conviction at all costs. At the same time, Crown counsel must be strong and effective advocates. Our role is to effectively lay before a trier of fact credible evidence relevant to an alleged offence firmly and to its legitimate strength, but also fairly.

Prosecutors act independently in conducting prosecutions and advising investigative agencies. This independence ensures that justice is impartial and that cases are handled based on facts without improper interference.

In conducting prosecutions, PPSC prosecutors are guided by the rules and guidelines in our PPSC desk book, which is publicly available. It sets out the principles that all federal prosecutors must follow in the exercise of their prosecutorial discretion.

An important guideline in our desk book is guideline 2.3 with respect to the decision to prosecute. This guideline was updated in 2023, prompted by an ongoing assessment of our policies that focused on providing clear guidance to prosecutors on how to be more proactive and conscious about recognizing bias, discrimination and other factors that contribute to overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.

As set out in guideline 2.3, to determine whether a prosecution should proceed, we ask ourselves whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. This is our decision-to-prosecute test. If the charges do not satisfy both parts of this test at any point in time in the prosecution, the prosecutor will end the prosecution.

Each file is always assessed individually based on the specific circumstances of the case. All persons charged with offences, including Fisheries Act offences, can expect the PPSC to conduct prosecutions in a manner that is equitable, objective and independent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. O'Connor.

Next we're going to Hannah Rogers for five minutes or less.

[Hannah Rogers, Director General, Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Environment]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Hannah Rogers, and I've been the director general of the environmental enforcement directorate at Environment and Climate Change Canada for approximately five years.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the Fisheries Act and Environment and Climate Change Canada's role in its enforcement.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. I am reminded every day that our work to protect fisheries and water resources supports our shared responsibility to be good stewards of the land—an important value long upheld by indigenous peoples.

Let me start by outlining ECCC's role in enforcing the Fisheries Act.

Our department is responsible for administering and enforcing the pollution prevention provisions of the act. These provisions prohibit the release of substances into water that are deleterious to fish unless expressly authorized by regulation. This is one of Canada's most important legislative tools for safeguarding fisheries resources and protecting our waters from pollution. Its requirements apply broadly to all Canadian fisheries waters.

ECCC created a separate branch, our enforcement branch, in 2005, following a standing committee report calling for an independent and centralized enforcement agency to ensure the independence of enforcement.

Our mandate is both broad and complex. We operate in every province and territory, with about 266 trained officers who enforce the laws and regulations across a wide range of industrial and other activities. This includes the enforcement of several regulations made under the Fisheries Act that authorize the release of deleterious substances but under strict and highly controlled conditions. To date, seven such regulations have been developed, including those for the metal and diamond mining sector, the pulp and paper sector, and municipal waste-water systems.

Our enforcement officers conduct inspections to verify compliance with the Fisheries Act in accordance with the publicly available compliance and enforcement policy for the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. This policy establishes the principles of fair, predictable and consistent enforcement, and outlines the full suite of available enforcement responses. It applies nationally to all officials exercising regulatory authority.

If officers have reasonable grounds to believe there has been an alleged violation, they may take a range of actions, including warnings, directions and prosecutions, to bring parties into compliance on a case-by-case basis. Of course, ECCC enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once. For this reason, our organization uses a risk-based approach to determine where to focus our enforcement efforts. This ensures that resources are directed to sectors and activities with the highest risk of non-compliance and the greatest potential to harm the environment or human health. It also supports departmental priorities, such as incident responses and referrals.

In the 2024-25 fiscal year, under the Fisheries Act, ECCC enforcement conducted 2,458 inspections, which led to 18 new investigations. An additional 47 investigations were carried over from previous years due to their complexity and scope. Officers issued 160 warning letters and 63 directions, and four files were recommended for prosecution during this period.

There were 10 convictions under the Fisheries Act, resulting in approximately $14 million in penalties and fines. Of this amount, $13,930,000—almost all of it—was directed to the environmental damages fund, which supports projects that benefit ecosystems and communities across Canada.

ECCC takes environmental protection very seriously and will act against polluters when appropriate. Our officers are resourceful and use all tools available to address non-compliance.

Over time, enforcement officers have noted various challenges that impact the effective enforcement of the Fisheries Act. We are modernizing our approach by equipping officers with new technologies, such as satellite imagery, drones and remote sensing. In addition, we are examining whether administrative monetary penalties—recommended by stakeholders and by the 2019 commissioner of the environment and sustainable development's report entitled “Protecting fish From Mining Effluent”—could enhance our ability to address low- and medium-severity violations and increase overall efficiency.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Rogers.

That concludes our opening remarks.

We're going into the first round of questioning—the six-minute round—starting with Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

As you know, we're reviewing the 2018-19 changes to the Fisheries Act. Ms. Beauchamp, could you provide to the committee in writing how many investigations have been referred to PPSC by DFO for every year since 2018, and how many charges PPSC has approved for each referral from DFO?

[Emma Beauchamp, Director and General Counsel, Public Prosecution Service of Canada]

We can look into the statistics that are available. We don't necessarily have the same tracking mechanisms as DFO in terms of what files are referred to us and the charges that are being laid.

Statistics are not necessarily the most representative way of determining how we prosecute the offences that are referred to us. We apply a two-pronged test, as mentioned by my colleague Ms. O'Connor, when we determine whether charges should be approved, and it's based on a reasonable prospect of conviction and the public interest.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Our stakeholders, the people who come to us, would certainly like to know those numbers. They're very relevant to them. That's the reason I ask.

Are you able to provide the number of investigations referred to your department and how many are actually approved?

[Emma Beauchamp]

We can certainly endeavour to do that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Beauchamp, considering some of the evidence this committee has received in recent weeks, it's very important that we understand how PPSC decides who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.

The PPSC desk book that was mentioned in your opening remarks states:

Crown counsel must only proceed with prosecutions where two conditions are met:

1. There is a reasonable prospect of conviction; and

2. The prosecution is in the public interest.

When PPSC does this type of assessment of charges relating to fish harvesting, does DFO come to PPSC with the charges already defined or recommended, or do DFO and PPSC have conversations about the circumstances and actions in question and what the corresponding laws and regulations are, and then determine what charges are appropriate?

[Emma Beauchamp]

PPSC and DFO have an ongoing dialogue during both the investigative stage and the prosecution stage. In other words, DFO has independent discretion with respect to how and what they are going to investigate. We provide investigatory assistance during the investigative stage. Certainly, what the evidence sustains—the appropriate charge—is part of the ongoing dialogue.

Ultimately, whether or not to move forward with charges is PPSC's independent discretion based on, as you just referenced, our two-pronged test, but we have an ongoing and engaged dialogue with our enforcement partners and with ECCC.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

When determining the first factor for prosecution—whether there's a reasonable prospect of conviction—I assume that PPSC must assess both the activities in question and the applicable laws and regulations. Is that a fair assumption?

[Emma Beauchamp]

Yes, it is one of the factors. There are a considerable number of factors we will assess, the most important being whether or not we have available admissible evidence, but there are other factors we will take into account at the reasonable prospect of conviction stage. Available defences and possible charter applications are factors we will take into account when we are determining whether or not we have a reasonable prospect of conviction.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

For potential charges related to possible fisheries harvesting offences, what laws and regulations would the PPSC measure the alleged offence against?

[Emma Beauchamp]

I'm sorry; I might not have understood your question correctly.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

For potential charges related to possible fish harvesting offences, what laws and regulations does PPSC measure the alleged offence with or against?

[Emma Beauchamp]

Generally, the offence we look at will be provided for in the Fisheries Act or in its related regulations, and those are the offences we look at when we're evaluating what charges should be laid when referred by DFO.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

As you know, this committee is studying the 2019 changes to the act. Are you aware that Bill C-68 in 2019 established in the Fisheries Act a new definition of the word “laws”? It is in section of the current act.

[Emma Beauchamp]

I'm not familiar with the new definition, but I would be happy to look at it.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

The Fisheries Act definition of “laws”, established in Bill C-68, states that the word laws “includes the by-laws made by an Indigenous governing body”.

Has DFO or any other federal entity provided PPSC with all the laws of every indigenous governing body with which the Crown has finalized fisheries resources reconciliation agreements or other agreements related to fish harvesting?

[Emma Beauchamp]

They've not been provided directly, but if a recommendation were made to lay a charge with respect to an indigenous bylaw, they would certainly provide us with the text of the bylaw.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Fisheries officers, the C and P staff, then, should be provided with the information that's in the laws and bylaws that are considered law.

[Emma Beauchamp]

I can't speak to what DFO officers receive or have available to them, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

Next we are going to Monsieur Cormier for six minutes.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

Ms. Beauchamp or Ms. O'Connor, for those who follow our work, and even for some of our colleagues around the table, the law can sometimes be complicated and technical. It does take a few explanations to understand how this whole prosecution process works.

Can you give us a typical example of a group that is arrested under the Fisheries Act? It is probably the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or its officers who decide whether or not to prosecute. Can you tell us how you go about conducting a proper prosecution?