Daniel Rotman
Executive Director
Consultations on Bill 5 (An Act to accelerate the granting of authorizations required for the completion of priority projects and of national scope) began this week in Quebec City. Under the guise of efficiency, the bill bends the rules for a handful of developers. It creates a troubling grey area from a democratic perspective, and has a high probability of missing the target it claims to be aiming for.
An unprecedented and worrisome concentration of power
Bill 5 concentrates exceptional power in the hands of the executive branch – particularly in the hands of the Finance Minister – without clear guidelines or the necessary guardrails to prevent it from going adrift.
Without clearly defining which types of projects could be deemed “priority and of national scope”, Bill 5 allows the government to suspend or waive the application of entire laws. Laws that exist to ensure the respect of Quebec’s collective social, environmental and economic objectives.
There will be no commissioner, no scientific body, no broader democratic institution called upon to act as a safeguard. Once the bill becomes law, the National Assembly will be a mere spectator.
In other words, it would no longer be the projects that have to obey the law, but the law that has to bend to the projects.
This law will enable the government to select the projects (from among those submitted directly by developers) that will be allowed to deviate from a multitude of existing standards, in order to facilitate their implementation and their operation once they’re up and running.
We could end up with a national park disfigured by a pipeline or a mine opening up in a tourist destination against the wishes of surrounding municipalities.
Quebecers won’t take this lying down
With this law, the government will be able to authorize preparatory work before even analyzing the project’s impacts. Citizens would be left facing a fait accompli. The government also gives itself the right to override the will of municipalities by imposing projects without having to demonstrate that there are no other alternatives that would be less risky or costly. It makes it virtually impossible to discuss the merits of the projects, and difficult to control the government's decisions.
On a practical level, this approach seems counterproductive. It increases legal uncertainty and gives preferential treatment to a handful of developers, to the detriment of all other businesses who have to follow the rules.
By weakening decision-making processes, it undermines social acceptability and exposes the projects to legal challenges. Quebec’s recent history should serve as a lesson. As we have seen with Energy East, GNL Québec, shale gas in the St. Lawrence Valley and Northvolt, imposing or fast-tracking projects labelled as strategic or in the public interest is often the best way to delay or even kill them.
Taking a step back
The question is not whether there are large-scale strategic projects that would be in the public interest. There are. In addition to the consequences of our trade relations with the United States, are we not already living through a climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis and a housing crisis - all of which require large-scale projects?
Other paths forward, more coherent and sustainable than exempting developers from all manner of regulations, exist. If we want to accelerate things, we need better planning from the start: well-defined projects that address the crises we’re dealing with, well-structured and prepared within a predictable framewor
With a decisive election just a few months away, the government should proceed cautiously before proposing legislation with such heavy consequences.
Let’s not rush headlong into this. Taking a step back is not a sign of weakness. It’s the responsible, and democratic thing to do.
This opinion piece was originally published in La Presse on Wednesday, February 11, 2026.
