In the letter she says both, about the money too. But I think that captures the main spirit of her letter- that if groups organized around and for social justice issues had seen some signs of outreach, she wouldn't be writing this letter.
As I've noted above, environmentalists have had an entirley different experience with this government... and that includes around some not so small immediate or near term government expenditures, not to mention marching quickly down a path that leads to higher electricity rates.
I cannot speak at all with any knowledge of my own about the experience of social justice groups. But I can see some obvious factors at play here.
One is that the expenditures quickly made for wilderness areas were the fulfillment of campaign promises- like the promise of transition house increases that are for next year. So in both cases its the unfolding as planned.
As to the listening part. With environmental issues, the government has moved very quickly and the process has been more open than what it sounded like when it was announced. As noted upthread, the civil servants involved had done their homework before this government. So it was almost a matter of flipping the switch. Is no preparation a reason for not opening up in the same way to social justice groups? No. But there is that definite preparation difference, and this government does move cautiously and deliberately.
Lastly. It would be fair to say that Pamela and I both had a chip on our shoulders to the movers and shakers of this government. When the group I was in was discussing how to proceed in August, two months after the election, I was for not waiting and pressing them hard... because to my mind they had already shown enough of their intentions, or lack thereof. I was pretty much a minority of one, so we waited.
Pamelas letter comes several months later. But like I said, the government is starting from zero around juggling everytihing around social issues. 'Opening up' sounds simple to outsiders. But opening with no prior preparation in practice easily leads to making tacit commitments without realzing that it happened, and without having considered the broader implications that will follow.
Bottom line, just because Pamela and others cannot see it- like I couldn't- its still early stages, and the government may already be moving in a manner closer to what they were hoping for.