(Version française disponible ici)

From the moment Donald Trump took power, his administration has been attacking democratic and judicial processes on all fronts. One of its most recent moves is an attempt to reduce public consultations and allow U.S. agencies to withdraw regulations without notifying or consulting the parties concerned.

Trump’s goal is clear: he wants to shrink the regulatory framework. This is consistent with the White House’s deregulatory approach to governance, where efficiency (in the form of reducing costs) often prevails over transparency and participation.

A trend on both sides of the border

On both sides of the border, the idea of cutting regulations to stimulate economic growth and investment has real appeal. No one wants to drown small and medium-sized businesses in red tape, see housing construction delayed because of a multiplication of permits, or stifle innovation by prohibiting the adoption of new technologies.

This was the spirit that motivated the Canadian government to put guidelines in place to contain the expansion of its regulatory framework, and to work actively on reducing the impact of regulations on citizens and businesses. The work that the standing committee on government operations and estimates is doing to modernize regulation amply illustrates this effort. In addition, since 2012, Canada has had a “one-for-one” rule in place encouraging departments to repeal one existing regulation for every new one they adopt.

However, our regulatory framework, like that of the United States, did not sprout up overnight. While some rules have become obsolete or unnecessarily restrictive, the vast majority were adopted to respond to specific needs, whether guiding behaviour, correcting market failures, or protecting the public from risks.

Public consultations play a vital role

For example, legalizing cannabis for recreational use in 2018 required the government to put in place a comprehensive regulatory framework for the production, distribution, and consumption of this newly authorized substance. Similarly, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy led to the introduction of new rules on the transport of hazardous materials. A clear and robust regulatory framework can even stimulate innovation by directing investment towards safer, more efficient, or more sustainable technologies.

However, regulating human activity is a complex task. The impacts of regulation are manifold and rarely anticipated in their entirety. Although regulators are specialists, they have less up-to-date information at hand than do the actors they regulate, particularly when it comes to the latest innovations and practices in the sector. In addition, the analytical tools they have at their disposal cannot capture all the effects of the rules or allow them to differentiate the impacts they will have on each of the groups affected by them.

This is why, in addition to internal analyses, regulators rely on consultations that are held frequently, and in public. These consultations play an essential role in creating an exchange of information between the administration and its stakeholders, which allows them to report unexpected effects, inconsistencies, or potential obstacles.

A tool to counterbalance power

In Canada, every new regulation, amendment, or withdrawal must be submitted to a process of open public consultation, particularly when the changes could have a significant impact on the economy or on the safety of citizens. These consultations, conducted by Canadian government departments and agencies, give regulators access to information that otherwise would be unavailable to the state, thereby improving the relevance, responsiveness, and legitimacy of the regulations.

The consultations also allow stakeholder concerns to be incorporated into the development process, avoiding the adoption of rules that will likely be challenged, or fail when they are implemented.

Trump vs. democracy itself

Can building more affordable housing be compatible with local democracy?

Research has shown that, in the Canadian context, these consultations allow groups that are normally excluded from power to express themselves and significantly influence the nature of regulations. Among other things, this helps to counterbalance the influence of industry players and challenge the regulatory status quo.

These findings are part of a broader perspective where contemporary theories of governance recognize the importance of including the voices of civil society and experts in regulatory decision-making. These approaches challenge the traditional monopoly of public administration over the production and selection of information. They also justify opening decision-making processes to external actors.

Issues with real impacts

Eliminating or limiting open consultations, as the US administration is now doing, would have a direct impact on the quality of regulations, the transparency of processes, and on accountability. It would also undermine a hard-won democratic balance.

Historically, public consultations have evolved in response to criticisms that regulatory processes are opaque, arbitrary in nature, and exclude marginalized voices. By reducing this space for dialogue, we run the risk of returning to a more technocratic form of governance where decisions are made behind closed doors without input from those who experience their effects on a daily basis.

The stakes are very real for Canadians. The approximately 3,880 federal regulations in force today affect almost every aspect of our lives, from the length of yo-yo strings to greenhouse gas emission thresholds for sports utility vehicles, to criteria for GMO commercialization.

Reducing the room for dialogue over these rules would mean weakening our collective ability to shape, question, and adapt them. At a time when trust in public institutions is fragile, preserving these participatory mechanisms is more important than ever. Instead of seeking to eliminate them, we should be seeking to improve them.

Canada, which has long been a pioneer in public consultation, must not sacrifice a democratic and strategic tool that is essential to developing more effective public policies.