Major projects run on public confidence, not just public funding.

This piece was originally published in the Calgary Herald on April 7, 2026.

Canada is entering a defining era of federal major projects, the kind that will shape our economy and our global competitiveness for decades. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s major project announcements signal an ambition to accelerate nation-building infrastructure.

The opportunity is enormous and so is the responsibility. These projects will not succeed on timelines and capital alone. They will succeed only if citizens are meaningfully engaged in the decisions that determine what gets built, where, and how.

Too often “public engagement” is treated like a box to tick after the route is picked, the budget is set, and the press release is drafted. However, that approach is outdated and expensive. It slows shovels, inflames conflict, ignores Indigenous Title and Rights and turns significant projects into symbols of mistrust.

There’s a misconception that engagement slows things down. In reality, major projects operate at the speed of trust. Engagement is key to securing a durable mandate, and it can happen quickly and meaningfully when it is designed as a foundational part of shaping a project rather than as a late-stage exercise. Done early, it recognizes rights, helps surface concerns, hopes and opportunities before they harden into opposition.

Consider the projects that dominate the Canadian imagination and investor spreadsheets. LNG in British Columbia is framed as an export opportunity and a geopolitical tool, particularly as allies seek reliable energy supply. High-speed rail, new transmission, and carbon capture are pitched as the infrastructure of productivity and resilience. Major nuclear files, from small modular reactors to long-term waste stewardship, are moving in parallel. These projects can face community opposition as they touch identity, jurisdiction, and intergenerational risk.

Early and thoughtful public engagement can be the difference between earning lasting trust rather than mere compliance. Compliance is brittle. It can be obtained by rushing a timeline, narrowing a comment period, or leaning on technical jargon. Consent stands the test of time. It is earned in different ways, including through co-development and co-design with rights holders and through early conversations that shape decisions. When engagement happens early, it reveals local knowledge that improves design, reduces environmental risk, and prevents avoidable cost overruns. When it happens downstream, it becomes a referendum on trust.

We do not have to speculate about what happens when governments get ahead of their public. In October 2025, Ontario floated the idea of changing month-to-month “evergreen” leases, triggering swift backlash from tenants and housing advocates. Within days, the province called off the proposed consultations entirely. That is what a hurried signal looks like in the real world: confusion first, outrage second, retreat third. The policy may not be a megaproject but the lesson is relatable. Decisions that land as surprises invite opposition that becomes a schedule, cost, and reputation problem.

Now raise the stakes to a proposed major project within Indigenous territories. Here, engagement is not only best practice but a constitutional reality. Nations are rights holders with their own governments, laws, and priorities. Projects that treat Indigenous engagement as a risk-mitigation tactic miss the biggest opportunity on the table: shared decision making and prosperity built through equity participation, procurement pathways, training pipelines, and stewardship models that reflect Indigenous knowledge and authority. Done well, this is reconciliation you can measure: jobs created, revenues shared, language and culture supported, and ecological outcomes strengthened.

Major projects impact the lives of equity-seeking communities that are too often not considered in engagement strategies, from racialized Canadians to newcomers to people with disabilities, low-income communities, and beyond. Failing to engage early is a missed opportunity to reveal, among other things, practical barriers and unintended consequences of a project. In many cases, these insights will emerge later as backlash, litigation, or delay.

Carney’s bold agenda matched by billions in investments presents an opportunity. Canada can build fast and engage meaningfully at the same time.

The formula is not a mystery. The International Association for Public Participation is refining its global guidelines for public engagement, drawing on the expertise of communications and engagements practitioners, including our team at ChangeMakers. The goal is clearer, faster decision-making and project mandates that are rooted in the voices of the people most affected.

Engage early. Agree on a shared vision. Share information clearly. Put real options on the table. Fund participation so communities are not asked to volunteer their capacity. Respect Indigenous title and rights. Then communicate with humility because Canadians can tell the difference between information and persuasion.

That is how we turn major projects into collective national achievements.