The federal government is proposing major changes to how large projects are assessed, approved, permitted, and built in Canada. These changes could affect decisions about mines, ports, airports, pipelines, nuclear facilities, transportation infrastructure, offshore energy, transmission lines, economic corridors, and other major projects.

The government says the goal is to make approvals faster, more coordinated, and more predictable.

But fast decisions still need strong evidence.

When projects could affect communities, ecosystems, Indigenous rights, public health, climate commitments, local economies, and public trust, speed cannot be the only goal. Major decisions need transparency, meaningful consultation, clear evidence, and public accountability.

The federal government is accepting feedback until July 22.

Take action: email your feedback to engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca 

More information on the submission process can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/one-canadian-economy/services/simplifying-canada-process/engagement-supporting-timely-decision-making.html 

Below, we have compiled a set of resources to help you understand the consultation and suggested structure and language to use in your submission. 

What is this consultation about?

The federal government has released a discussion paper called Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, which outlines proposed legislative, regulatory, and policy reforms. The proposals are meant to support faster decision-making for major projects in Canada.

The government says major projects often face a complicated, slow, expensive, and confusing approval process. It identifies issues such as duplication, poor coordination between departments, and consultation processes that can be difficult for Indigenous Peoples and project proponents to navigate. They are now considering changes to make the system faster and more coordinated.

What is the government proposing?

The discussion paper includes several major proposals.

1. One-year federal review timeline: Impact assessments and permits would be reviewed concurrently, with a goal of completing federal decisions within one year. One Crown consultation process: Creation of a Crown Consultation Hub to coordinate consultation with Indigenous groups.One project decision: A single federal decision document would cover all approvals for some projects. 
2. Single project authority: Projects would be assigned to the federal body with the most relevant expertise (e.g., CER for pipelines, CNSC for nuclear). 
3. Federal Economic Zones: Certain regions could allow pre-approved types of development. 
4. Streamlined regulatory changes: Proposed changes include narrowing permit requirements, increasing flexibility in environmental permits, shifting some decisions from Cabinet to ministers, allowing early construction in some cases, and permitting exemptions under the Species at Risk Act. 

What concerns us most about the proposals

Several proposals in the federal discussion paper raise serious concerns for evidence-informed decision-making.

• • One-year federal decision timelines could make it harder to conduct rigorous scientific assessments, review seasonal ecological impacts, assess cumulative effects, and ensure meaningful public and Indigenous participation
  • One Crown consultation process could improve coordination, but it must never become a shortcut that undermines Indigenous rights and meaningful engagement.
  • One project decision may simplify the process, but the simpler the process, the more critical transparency becomes about evidence, risks, and trade-offs.
  • Single Project Authority could reduce duplication, but risks undermining the independence and thoroughness of the review process. 
  • Federal Economic Zones could allow certain kinds of development to be pre-approved in designated areas. This raises major questions about how risks to land, water, species, climate, and communities would be assessed before specific projects move forward.
  • Streamlined regulatory changes could weaken environmental protections and reduce accountability.
  • Early construction before assessments are complete risks breaking ground before decision-makers and the public fully understand the impacts.
  • Flexibility in permitting for fish habitat, at-sea disposal, and environmental conditions may weaken safeguards that protect ecosystems and public health.
  • Potential exemptions from Species at Risk Act protections are especially concerning. Canada should not create pathways for major projects to move ahead if they could push species closer to extinction or undermine recovery.

These are not minor process changes. They could affect how Canada weighs evidence, protects ecosystems, respects Indigenous rights, and earns public trust in major decisions.

How to take action

The federal government is accepting feedback until July 22.

To submit your feedback:

1. Copy the template email below.
2. Personalize it with your own concerns, local examples, expertise, or lived experience.
3. Email it to engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca.
4. Use the subject line: Feedback on Major Projects Proposals.

What to include in your submission

The most useful submissions are clear, specific, and grounded in what matters to you. You can write a short email in your own words explaining what concerns you about the proposals and what safeguards you want the federal government to include.

The government has asked people to provide a rationale and/or evidence wherever possible. That means your submission will be stronger if you explain why the issue matters, include examples from your community or field, or point to evidence, experience, or expertise.

You may want to begin with a sentence like:

I am writing to urge the Government of Canada to ensure that efforts to build major projects faster do not weaken evidence-informed decision-making, environmental protection, Indigenous rights, public participation, or accountability.

Then choose one or more of the sections below that reflect your concerns:

If you are concerned about environmental assessment

Environmental assessments are not red tape. They are evidence-based processes that help governments understand potential risks before decisions are made and before harms become difficult or impossible to reverse.

You may want to say:

• Environmental assessment should remain rigorous, independent, and evidence-based.
• Faster approvals should not reduce the quality or scope of scientific review.
• Assessments must consider seasonal impacts, toxic by-products, cumulative effects, and long-term risks.
• Projects should not be approved before environmental impacts are properly understood.
• The government should not treat environmental safeguards as barriers to building.

You could include examples of why land, water, air, biodiversity, or ecosystem protection matters to your community.

If you are concerned about Species at Risk Act protections

Some of the proposals could allow the Cabinet to exempt specific projects from key Species at Risk Act protections in limited circumstances.

You may want to say:

• Species-at-risk protections should not be weakened for the sake of faster approvals.
• The government should not approve projects that could push species closer to extinction or undermine recovery.
• Any decision affecting species at risk should be based on strong public evidence and independent scientific assessment.
• Cabinet should not be able to override species protections without full transparency and public justification.

You could mention that once a species is lost, the damage cannot be undone.

If you are concerned about Federal Economic Zones

The discussion paper proposes creating Federal Economic Zones where certain types of development could be pre-approved, subject to conditions.

You may want to say:

• Pre-approving development in designated zones requires strong safeguards.
• Regional assessments must happen before zones are created.
• These assessments should include cumulative effects, Indigenous rights, environmental risks, climate impacts, public health, and community impacts.
• Communities should know which types of projects are allowed in a zone before decisions are made.
• Federal Economic Zones should not serve as a means to bypass project-specific scrutiny.

You could include concerns about your region, local ecosystems, water, transportation corridors, industrial development, or community impacts.

If you are concerned about one-year review timelines

The discussion paper proposes completing federal reviews and decisions within one year.

You may want to say:

• Faster timelines should not reduce the quality of evidence review.
• One-year targets must still allow enough time for scientific analysis, public input, Indigenous consultation, and environmental assessment.
• Timelines should not be shortened in ways that make meaningful participation impossible.
• The government should explain how it will ensure high-quality evidence review within shorter timelines.
• If evidence is incomplete, the timeline should not force a rushed decision.

You could mention that major projects can have impacts that last for decades, so the assessment process should not be rushed.

If you are concerned about Indigenous rights and consultation

The discussion paper proposes a One Crown Consultation Process and a Crown Consultation Hub.

Better coordination could be helpful, but only if it strengthens consultation rather than compressing it.

You may want to say:

• Indigenous Peoples must be partners in decision-making, not simply participants in a faster process.
• Any changes must align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Indigenous knowledge, laws, governance systems, priorities, and consent must meaningfully shape decisions.
• A coordinated consultation process should reduce duplication, not weaken consultation.
• Indigenous communities must have the time, resources, and information needed to participate meaningfully.

If you are Indigenous, you may want to share your own perspective on what meaningful consultation, partnership, and respect for rights should look like.

If you are concerned about public participation

Major projects affect communities. People should have a meaningful say before decisions are finalized.

You may want to say:

• Public consultation should happen early enough to shape decisions.
• The public should have access to clear, plain-language information about proposed projects.
• Communities should be able to understand risks, benefits, alternatives, and trade-offs.
• Public input should be reflected in final decisions, not simply collected.
• Faster timelines should not make public participation harder.

You could include why public participation matters in your community or why trust depends on people being able to see how decisions are made.

If you are concerned about transparency

If major projects are approved or fast-tracked, Canadians should be able to understand why.

You may want to say:

• The government should publicly explain what evidence was used to support each major project decision.
• The public should know what risks were assessed, what alternatives were considered, and what trade-offs were made.
• If a project is deemed to be in the national interest, the government should explain why.
• If permits, assessments, or decisions are combined, the evidence behind each decision should still be visible.
• The government should publish plain-language decision rationales.

You could ask for a mandatory public evidence statement for any project that is approved, fast-tracked, or pre-approved.

If you are concerned about climate

Major projects can affect Canada’s climate commitments and long-term energy future.

You may want to say:

• Major project decisions should include clear climate impact assessments.
• The government should assess whether projects are consistent with Canada’s climate goals.
• Assessments should include emissions, lock-in effects, cumulative impacts, and climate risks.
• Climate evidence should be made public before decisions are finalized.
• Faster approvals should not weaken climate accountability.

You could include concerns about fossil fuel infrastructure, clean energy, transmission, ports, transportation, or long-term emissions.

If you are concerned about public health

Major projects can affect air, water, food systems, noise, transportation, housing, and community well-being.

You may want to say:

• Public health impacts should be assessed before projects are approved or fast-tracked.
• Health evidence should be part of major project decision-making.
• The government should assess impacts on air quality, water quality, toxic exposure, food security, and community health.
• Communities facing higher existing environmental burdens should receive particular attention.
• Faster approvals should not come at the expense of health protections.

You could include local examples of health, water, air quality, or community concerns.

If you are concerned about accountability after approval

Approving a project should not be the end of evidence-informed decision-making.

You may want to say:

• The government should require public post-approval monitoring.
• Conditions attached to approvals should be enforceable.
• The public should be able to see whether promised benefits are delivered.
• The government should report on whether risks are being managed.
• There should be consequences if project conditions are not met.

You could ask for public reporting on environmental impacts, community impacts, promised benefits, and compliance with approval conditions.

Suggested closing

You can close your email with a simple request:

I urge the Government of Canada to ensure that speed does not become an excuse to weaken evidence-informed decision-making. Canada can build major projects, but those decisions must be made with strong evidence, meaningful consultation, environmental safeguards, respect for Indigenous rights, transparency, and public accountability.

Where to send your feedback

Email your submission to:

engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca

Suggested subject line:

Feedback on Major Projects Proposals

Deadline: July 22