OTTAWA — September 24, 2026 — Evidence for Democracy (E4D) is calling on Parliament to ensure that efforts to accelerate major projects do not weaken the role of independent evidence, transparency and public accountability in federal decision-making.

Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, raises important questions about where decision-making authority sits and how independent evidence will influence those decisions.

The government of Canada’s recent What We Heard report documented recurring concern about concentrating authority in individual ministers or Cabinet, with participants warning that greater discretion could weaken accountability and diminish the role of independent scientific, technical, environmental and Indigenous expertise.

The public also raised concerns about specific reforms now reflected in the legislation. The report notes that public advocacy campaigns and petitions “consistently emphasized concern” about proposals including economic zones, changes to the Species at Risk Act, and making the Canada Energy Regulator the sole assessor of pipeline projects.

“Science does not make political decisions, but it must have a meaningful opportunity to shape them,” said Sarah Laframboise, Executive Director of Evidence for Democracy. “If governments choose a path that departs from scientific or technical advice, Canadians should be able to see what the evidence said, how it was considered and why a different decision was ultimately made.”

This is particularly important as the federal government seeks to dramatically shorten assessment timelines while reductions are underway across the federal public service. Environmental assessments require scientific and technical capacity to evaluate environmental risks, cumulative effects, uncertainties and mitigation options. Faster timelines do not reduce the amount or complexity of that work.

E4D is therefore concerned about whether departments and regulators will have sufficient scientific capacity to deliver rigorous assessments under significantly compressed timelines.

Transparency must grow alongside ministerial discretion

Bill C-39 must be examined through the lens of democratic accountability. The government has argued that consolidating federal processes will provide proponents and Canadians with clearer lines of responsibility. But decision-makers must clearly show how that decision was reached.

Canadians should be able to understand what evidence was considered, what federal scientists and technical experts advised, what uncertainties were identified, how Indigenous and public input affected the project, and the rationale for ministers when they exercise discretion or depart from expert recommendations.

A What We Heard report tells Canadians what the government heard. Real transparency also means showing what the government actually did with it.

As Parliament studies Bill C-39, E4D is calling for:

• Transparency from evidence-to-decision, including disclosure of the scientific and technical evidence and recommendations informing major project decisions and explanations when final decisions depart from that advice.
• Strong protections for independent scientific assessment, ensuring that consolidation and shorter timelines do not marginalize environmental or technical expertise.
• Adequate scientific capacity, including sufficient federal scientists and technical experts to undertake rigorous assessments within the government’s proposed timelines.
• Transparent use of ministerial discretion, with publicly accessible reasons and supporting evidence when ministers alter conditions, authorize early work or otherwise exercise discretionary powers.
• Meaningful public and Indigenous participation, including clear reporting on how consultation affected decisions rather than simply documenting that consultation occurred.
• Success is measured by more than speed, so the new system is evaluated not by whether decisions are reached within one year, but by environmental outcomes, assessment quality, public accountability and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has said that, “When Canada decides a project should go ahead, that project will go ahead.”

For Evidence for Democracy, that raises one question: How did Canada decide?

-30-

About Evidence for Democracy: Evidence for Democracy (E4D) is Canada’s leading non-partisan, not-for-profit organization championing the integration of scientific evidence in government decision-making. Through original research, skills training, and advocacy campaigns, we foster public demand for transparent and evidence-informed policies that benefit society.