Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

[Shannon O'Connor]

I can't speak to the provision of information by different departments, and I certainly don't want to be misinterpreted in suggesting that we may be provided with information that's not otherwise available. I would have to know about specific instances of what information has been provided in specific cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

Next we're going to Mr. Connors, who is online, for five minutes.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Hi. Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming out. It's certainly an interesting discussion.

Ms. O'Connor, you mentioned that there are, I think, 75 acts and a number of regulations you have to interpret when you're moving forward with a prosecution. Are there prosecutors who specialize in the Fisheries Act today? Is there anyone who specializes, or is this a case-by-case process?

[Shannon O'Connor]

We do have regulatory and economic teams across the country, and those prosecutors will specialize in the prosecution of regulatory offences. Where there's perhaps a higher volume of, say, Fisheries Act cases, we'll absolutely develop an expertise and a specialty in that type of prosecution.

We have expertise centrally in our headquarters, as well as regionally, to ensure the highest quality standard of prosecutorial excellence when bringing forward these files.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I want to go back to what I think Mr. Small mentioned—that conservation and sustainability are some of the key factors or purposes of the Fisheries Act. Then Mr. Morrissey gave you an example of an identical situation, and the only thing different was first nations....

I'm wondering how, for a violation under the Fisheries Act, it would not be considered in the public's best interest to move forward with prosecution.

[Shannon O'Connor]

In considering the public interest in prosecuting a violation of the Fisheries Act, we would consider a variety of factors that include the harm to the community. I'm saying community, but it could be the harm to the environment or the impact an alleged offence has had on the environment. Sometimes it is small; sometimes it is significant, and that plays a role in our assessment. This is, of course, not to say that where it is small, a prosecution is not in the public interest. It is one of many factors we take into consideration. We also consider whether the prosecution of an offence would maintain public confidence in the regulatory regime.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay, thank you.

Are there times when DFO officers disagree with a prosecutor or your department about moving forward with prosecution?

[Shannon O'Connor]

Yes, that does occur. We develop, and we believe very strongly in the importance of, an open dialogue.

Because of the nature of our independence, investigative agencies—in this case we'll say DFO, because that's what we're talking about—may make decisions that we would not have made. That's in their independent discretion to do, and we may make decisions that they would not have made, and that's in our independent discretion to do.

However, when we do so, we ensure that we have conversations and dialogue to understand each other's perspectives, and we take them into consideration in our decision-making. We will also discuss those decisions afterwards, and we will do the same with my colleague to ensure that we have an open dialogue and a collaborative relationship appropriately within our independent spheres.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

But the ultimate decision would come down to your department. It would make the final decision if it would go forward.

[Shannon O'Connor]

Yes, it would on whether to proceed with or continue a prosecution.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

From your department's perspective, are there aspects of the Fisheries Act that are redundant and may cause you to not move forward or may cause delays in your ability to act better? Can you identify or see anything that might need to be changed in the act in order to get convictions?

[Shannon O'Connor]

It is important to the Public Prosecution Service that we are available, whether it's to departments or committees, to provide information about the prosecutorial impact of particular legislation that's being considered for amendment, or new legislation. It is not for us to usurp the role of parliamentarians in making policy decisions about how acts should be changed, but if they are being contemplated, we are available to answer questions about what the impact on prosecutions may be of particular amendments, absolutely.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Would it be your role to make recommendations where you see something that is not working in the act or is redundant in the act in order to help us make better decisions?

[Shannon O'Connor]

Part of the importance of our independence is that we not overstep into the policy lane of the Government of Canada and that we keep on the prosecutorial side. Certainly, we can share with our colleagues at departments about, for example, how an amendment might impact a prosecution, making it either easier or more difficult to tender evidence or establish an offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Connors.

That finishes the third round. We're starting the fourth round with Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'll use a minute or two, and then I'll pass it on to my colleague Mr. Hardy.

Ms. O'Connor, I want to go back to the question on how other laws and bylaws may impact the enforcement of and prosecution under the Fisheries Act. How does PPSC determine if an alleged offence merits a charge if PPSC does not know all of the laws and regulations that could be applicable?

[Shannon O'Connor]

PPSC is absolutely familiar with all of the federal laws and regulations that we have jurisdiction to prosecute. If there is, say, a bylaw pursuant to the Indian Act that may be viewed as in conflict, we would be sure to consult with constitutional experts to determine—

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

What about other laws and bylaws that are outside of Canadian or parliamentary legislation?

[Shannon O'Connor]

Just to clarify, is this about a prosecution pursuant to the Fisheries Act—a federal law—and another law is in conflict with it, or is it about prosecuting other laws?

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

I mean both.

[Shannon O'Connor]

In terms of the prosecution of other laws, that is likely not our role. It may be, for example, for the provincial prosecution service.

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

That's fair enough.

[Shannon O'Connor]

It is not the Public Prosecution Service's role to determine the validity of a law that would be brought before a judge.

There was a question on the impact when there are arguably contradictory laws. In those circumstances, one avenue, probably a very common avenue, to resolve that would be to prosecute the file, and if the defence raised that before the judge as a defence, we would bring forward the prosecution aspect, the defence would bring forward the defence aspect and a judge would rule.

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

Okay, so how do we solve the conundrum that we as legislators don't have access to those other bylaws and laws?

[Shannon O'Connor]

I can appreciate the frustration. It's unfortunately not for PPSC, as an independent prosecutorial authority, to provide advice or solutions in that circumstance.