Discussion papers aren’t accessible consultation, say non-profits: ‘the general public really knows nothing about this’

With the window for the public to give feedback on widespread changes to environmental regulations and impact assessments for major project developments now closed, non-profits say most Canadians aren't aware of the ongoing consultation, despite the government intending to table new legislation in the fall.

“We were made aware of this simply because we have some level of engagement with government representatives,” said Misty MacDuffee, the wild salmon program director at the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, an environmental non-profit that submitted feedback on the changes.  

“But the general public really knows nothing about this, and it's really, you know, just been the work of NGOs that have been able to generate the input that … the federal government has received.”

MacDuffee’s comments come as two discussion papers—proposing various changes to Canada's impact assessment law and regulations with an eye to speeding up project construction and approval timelines—closed for submissions on July 22. 

A number of organizations, including Evidence for Democracy (E4D), a non-profit that advocates for evidence-based policy, encouraged the public to submit their feedback, even though the papers are primarily targeted to stakeholders, such as to non-profits, industry, and Indigenous groups.

“It's truly not meant for the general public,” Sarah Laframboise, executive director of E4D said in an interview with The Hill Times. 

“It's kind of meant for key stakeholders who are already engaged in these topics, and we really wanted to make sure that the government was hearing from the public about these concerns.”

The changes proposed in the feds’ discussion papers have received backlash from environmental groups and Indigenous organizations who say the proposed sweeping changes could dismantle Canada's environmental impact assessment laws and regulations.

The first discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, proposes allowing some projects to be exempt from the jeopardy test—a provision in the Species at Risk Act that prevents a project's construction if it would severely impact, or kill, at-risk species—“with a high threshold.”  

The paper also puts forward that minister of one Canadian economy—a file currently held by Internal Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, N.B.)—should have the authority to “adjust” environmental conditions for national interest projects, “when needed.” 

It similarly suggests giving Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin (Toronto–Danforth, Ont.) the power to “adjust” environmental impact assessments, while also proposing green-lighting projects’ early construction without impact assessments even being completed if “necessary permits are approved,” among other sweeping changes to Canada’s impact assessment law.  

The second paper, Strengthening One Canadian Economy through trade and transportation, which also aims to “reduce red tape,” proposes allowing the transport minister—a post currently held by Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Que.), who is also the government’s leader in the House of Commons—the ability to designate national trade corridors, for which performance goals can be set. 

The paper outlines a “more modern and business-focused governance framework” for port authorities, speeding up approvals for “lower-risk projects,” and reducing “unnecessary reporting requirements,” among other changes. 

It also proposes the creation of federal "economic zones," in which the governor-in-council would have the authority to pre-approve some developments.

Both papers were open for feedback from May 8 to July 22, but the government had initially intended to move forward with legislation before the summer parliamentary recess, setting a June 7 feedback deadline. 

Due to backlash, however, the feds extended the consultation period into the summer, with legislation plans being moved to the fall when Parliament resumes.

The Privy Council Office said the feds received 21,000 submissions on the Getting Major Projects Built in Canada discussion paper, with the government attending 24 meetings with Indigenous groups and 27 meetings with stakeholders. 

Transport Canada told The Hill Times it received more than 200 submissions from the industry and the general public on the proposed changes in the second paper, as well as about 80 submissions from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. The department hosted three virtual engagement sessions, as well as three sessions with Indigenous people, Sau Sau Liu, a spokesperson from Transport Canada, said by email. 

Changes could kill southern resident killer whales at 'imminent risk' of extinction: MacDuffee

MacDuffee called the changes “the most aggressive dismantling of environmental laws and safeguards ever proposed in Canada,” calling for further study before legislation is introduced. 

“What they really need to do—if they're going to have a democratic process that includes scientific input, and more scrutiny on this—is to let the relevant committees that are addressing the proposed changes weigh in on this,” she said. 

But she added that even the discussion around dismantling Canada’s impact assessment law—much of which was spearheaded by then-prime minister Justin Trudeau in 2019 when he passed the Impact Assessment Act—has “already gone far past” a reasonable approach to economic growth and prosperity. 

Raincoast, meanwhile, is concerned the government is seeking to expand oil tankers and terminals in British Columbia, which will increase the risk of extinction for southern resident killer whales, primarily due to underwater noise and physical disturbances. 

There are only 74 southern resident killer whales left in the world, and MacDuffee said the species is at “imminent risk” of extinction. 

“The other ironic piece is that the government has made a substantial investment over the last decade in recovery for these whales, and now they're going to undermine all of their own initiatives,” she said. 

When the discussion papers were first publicly released, The Toronto Star reported that the proposed changes were developed with the southern resident killer whale, specifically, in mind, citing several anonymous sources, though the government pushed back on the reporting. 

Prime Minister Mark Carney (Nepean, Ont.) also signed an energy deal with Alberta this past November, outlining a pathway to constructing a new oil pipeline running from the province down to B.C.’s coast, which environmental groups have warned could have grave impacts on the species. 

Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith also recently agreed to an industrial carbon price—one of the terms in the deal—bringing the two governments closer to finalizing the agreement. Climate groups have warned the new pricing model is weaker and a step back.

Laframboise said, in this case, she understands why the feds chose discussion papers to “pilot” their ideas, as they are proposing a “very technical process.” Still, she pointed to drawbacks with the format.

“What's interesting is [discussion papers are] often very detailed and complex, and often can be not as accessible to a general public audience compared to other forms of consultation,” she said.

“The government is planning to move very quickly to introduce legislation following this engagement period,” Laframboise said, “so, for me, it brings up questions of how adaptable the government is to this input that they're asking for.”

She said the test for meaningful consultation is whether the feds will be adaptable to the feedback they have received, of which she speculated “most” wasn’t positive, given the number of submissions. 

E4D is also concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed changes, Laframboise said.

A number of environmental organizations and stakeholders submitted feedback opposing the changes outlined in the papers, including Nature Canada, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence, East Coast Environmental Law, and others.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich–Gulf Islands, B.C.) also submitted feedback, expressing the party’s opposition to the move. May writes that the changes could grant the feds "unprecedented power" to exempt projects from legislation under the "guise" of national interest—a cutting of red tape she called a "serious slippery slope."

"Moving fast and breaking things is a recipe for disaster, not a road map to economic prosperity," she writes.

A number of industry stakeholders, however, have submitted feedback in support of the changes. Those include: the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, the Business Council of Alberta, and others.  

Laframboise said that loosening environmental impact assessment law for major projects could also have financial ramifications. 

“Canada right now pays $1.2-billion for just contaminated site remediation costs every year,” she explained. 

“We pay for these things every day and every year, and they’re in the billions of dollars.”

But Laframboise told The Hill Times that after the hasty passage of Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act—the legislation governing the Major Projects Office that gives Parliament the authority to fast-track national-interest projects—the proposed changes in the discussion papers are “exactly” what organizations expected from the government. 

Bill C-5 made its way through the House and the Senate in only 20 days, completing its passage in the Senate on June 26, 2025, as Parliament rose for the summer.

"There's a world where we can be more efficient, and we can tackle some of these problems that we're facing with getting major projects built in Canada," Laframboise said.

"The point is that when we do build, we need to think critically about how we are doing that in an evidence-informed way, how we're being transparent with the public, accountable to some of our plans already, and also respectful of Indigenous rights."

ewand@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times