Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

[Shannon O'Connor]

Yes, absolutely.

I will begin, and then my colleague Ms. Beauchamp can add to my explanations. We hope we can provide some clarity.

Every case and every situation is different, but typically, when DFO officers are investigating a situation and think it might be appropriate to prosecute, they talk to us. They come to the regional office to speak to a prosecutor responsible for regulatory prosecutions to discuss the case. For less complicated or more ordinary cases, sometimes there is no discussion. For more complicated cases, such as matters—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt. The chair is missing.

We're not getting interpretation.

[Shannon O'Connor]

Oh, I apologize. I'll hold on for a moment.

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

That's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We're going to suspend for a minute while we figure this out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Let us resume.

Mr. Cormier, please start over. You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. O'Connor, for the average person, it can be difficult to understand how things work when DFO officers come to you to lay charges and how you determine whether a case should be brought before the courts, which can lead to fines and even imprisonment, I suppose, in some cases. Can you walk us through that process?

[Shannon O'Connor]

It depends on the situation that DFO officers have uncovered. For less complicated or less serious matters, when officers conduct an investigation and lay charges, the file is sent to the PPSC and we review it. To determine whether we're going to prosecute, we consider whether there's a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether prosecution is in the public interest. If the answer to both questions is yes, we conduct the prosecution to the end. In more complicated situations, where investigators have questions, we have a dialogue.

So we certainly have a pretty close relationship with all of the investigative bodies across the country, and with DFO. If officers have questions or want to get a prosecutor's opinion on a situation before laying charges, we discuss it with them and give them our opinion so they can make an independent decision. When a file is referred to us, once again, we consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether prosecution is in the public interest. If so, we take it to court. It generally takes months to complete a case from start to finish. If there is a finding of guilt, the sentence is determined.

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

Okay.

Ms. O'Connor, I'm going to raise something that is always difficult to discuss; we don't want to be taken out of context.

You have probably heard of a recent report about illegal fishing, whether in commercial or first nations fisheries. Over the past few years, there has been a lot of talk in the country and in the fishing industry about illegal fishing, especially by first nations.

Earlier, you said that when a decision is made to prosecute, you discuss the matter with DFO officials to determine whether it is appropriate to prosecute, in which case all available evidence is probably considered.

When it comes to prosecutions involving first nations, are there cases where you might decide to be more lenient, so to speak, or do you fully enforce the Fisheries Act? Do you really go by the act or, depending on the situation, are you more cautious in the interest of reconciliation? When you arrest a certain group, are you more cautious because the public might view it negatively?

Do you have those discussions about the challenges that DFO officers face when it comes to prosecutions, especially if it's a first nations group?

[Shannon O'Connor]

Generally, yes, absolutely.

We discuss a lot of aspects of our prosecution files. When difficult situations arise in our communities, that is something that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada considers independently.

Those are touchy situations to manage, and I understand that it is also difficult to explain, but specific factors are set out in the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook. Guideline 2.3 of that guide tells us what to do when there are public interest issues, when there is significant damage to the community, such as a frequently recurring situation that causes a lot of damage to the community. That is a factor we consider before deciding whether or not to prosecute, if we have to conduct—

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

What do you mean by a lot of damage to the community? Do you mean that prosecuting a certain group could create tension in the community?

[Shannon O'Connor]

No, what I meant is that, in the case of the fishery, the matter affects the resource itself and causes a lot of problems to that resource. If we consider that it is an environmental issue, but—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I only have a minute left—

[Shannon O'Connor]

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

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

Earlier, you said something to the effect that, when DFO officers discuss a prosecution with you, there could be some discretion. What do you mean by “discretion”? Do you mean discretion to prosecute or lay charges? Is discretion exercised?

[Shannon O'Connor]

DFO officers and prosecutors have discretion. What I mean is that sometimes DFO officers lay charges without talking to us. That's generally in cases that are less serious or less complex. We can discuss those cases—and we encourage them to do so—before charges are laid, to make sure that we are working together within our respective mandates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Deschênes, you are up next and you have the floor for six minutes.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Good morning, everyone. I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

Ms. O'Connor, my questions are for you. Basically, I want to understand the obstacles to enforcement of the act, as reported to us by people on the ground. So I'm glad you're here so that we can talk about the rules applied by prosecutors to determine whether or not charges will be laid.

I read section 2.3 of the Canadian Public Prosecution Service Deskbook. I would you like to help me understand how it is interpreted in everyday life. First of all, your director, George Dolhai, already explained some things in August 2024. In a statement, he said that, as part of the decision-making process as to whether or not to prosecute, prosecutors must consider the evidence as well as the public interest, taking into account the potential impact of systemic discrimination or racism.

When your director says that the impact of systemic discrimination or racism must be taken into account, what does that mean? Does that have to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to lay charges?

[Shannon O'Connor]

The second question we ask when deciding whether or not to lay charges is the following: Is prosecution in the public interest? To answer that question, we look at factors such as the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system, for example.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

With all due respect, I note that, in the guide, the issue of discrimination seems to come up at both stages.

We understand that the first question the prosecutor asks is whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. The guide says: “For example, when the case against an accused is not very strong and they have personal circumstances that are mitigating, Crown counsel should consider not proceeding. These circumstances may include an accused who has been subject to systemic discrimination.”

Is there not a reasonable perception, on the part of any prosecutor, that all first nations people are victims of systemic discrimination?

[Shannon O'Connor]

I'm glad you asked that question, because that is something that is something we talk about a lot at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. It is important for us to consider factors related to Canada's history and overrepresentation, but it is also important to act independently and enforce Canada's laws. So that is something we always talk about.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Could we not agree that all indigenous people in Canada experience systemic racism or discrimination in one way or another?

[Shannon O'Connor]

I could talk about how the Public Prosecution Service of Canada manages that issue. When an accused is indigenous, their situation is considered to see if it may have been affected by discrimination or racism.

As to the reasonable prospect of conviction, you're absolutely right. Bias and racism are not factors that we consider. In making our decision, however, if there is ultimately a reasonable prospect of conviction, but that prospect is not very strong, and if prosecution is not necessarily in the public interest, we weigh the pros and cons.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Now let's talk about the public interest.

I think it would be reasonable for a prosecutor to say that, since the potential accused is indigenous and since the issue of residential schools and indigenous history has widespread repercussions, authorization to prosecute would be limited. I think it is difficult to do a case-by-case analysis to determine whether a given indigenous person has been a victim. It's really the use of the word “systemic” that makes it difficult. I think it's very likely that prosecutors will consider that most or all indigenous people have experienced systemic discrimination.

Let's move on to the second part of the analysis, which is the issue of public interest. I want you to explain how that happens. Let's say you get through the first step and determine that there's a reasonable chance of guilt, you have to determine whether the prosecution is in the public interest, and you have to analyze the accused's situation. The guide cites indigenous identity as one of the factors that can influence the public interest:

Crown counsel must consider the ongoing impacts of colonialism, residential schools, over-representation and systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system when the accused is First Nations, Métis or Inuit.

This relates directly to the public interest. What does this directive to prosecutors mean when they are deciding whether or not to lay charges against a first nations person?

[Shannon O'Connor]

It is a factor we consider. We consider the individual circumstances of the accused and the circumstances of the allegations in each case. It is always on an individual, case-by-case basis.