Infrastructures and Major Projects
Overview
Lavery stands out as a leader in the infrastructures and major projects sector in Quebec, providing its expertise to various stakeholders involved in this dynamic sector.
Lavery stands out as a leader in the infrastructures and major projects sector in Quebec, providing its expertise to various stakeholders involved in this dynamic sector.
Our team of skilled professionals is fully equipped to meet all your infrastructure project needs, backed by its proven experience and skills:
- Infrastructure projects: We have considerable experience in the acquisition, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of infrastructures, allowing us to manage large-scale projects efficiently within any contractual framework, including collaborative delivery modes.
- Energy: We support our clients in the development, financing and implementation of renewable and conventional energy projects. With our extensive expertise, we provide strategic advice on the regulatory, contractual and environmental aspects of their projects and support them in negotiating complex contracts, procuring permits, and managing potential disputes. Our team is dedicated to promoting innovative and sustainable solutions to meet today’s energy challenges.
- Industrial projects: We support businesses from many industries with the design, construction and operation of industrial and manufacturing facilities. We provide comprehensive legal expertise in contractual law, environmental law and labour regulations, which enables our clients to effectively navigate the complex legal framework of these projects.
- Collaboration with public entities: Our expertise extends to Quebec and Canadian Crown corporations and statutory bodies, in particular the transportation, rail law and renewable energy sectors.
- Tenders management: We provide comprehensive assistance with call for tender reviews, strategic contract planning and tender management.
- Dispute management: We have expertise in managing disputes during construction and in post-construction claim settlement, providing quick and effective dispute resolution.
- Knowledge of public bodies: Our in-depth knowledge of contract management principles used by public bodies allows us to provide relevant legal and strategic advice on governance.
- Tender analysis: We offer advice and a robust analysis of the admissibility and conformity of construction tenders and claims.
- Constitutional aspects: Our proficiency in constitutional aspects and in the distribution of legislative powers enable us to effectively navigate through the complex legal framework of infrastructure projects.
- Transaction and financial structures: Our expertise covers transaction and financial structures, including partnerships, ensuring a solid financial foundation for your projects.
- Real estate transactions: We provide specialized advice on real estate operations and transactions, such as acquisitions/sales, expropriations, dismemberments of the right of ownership, servitudes, leases and occupancy permits.
With Lavery, you enjoy the benefits of a top strategic partner who will support you at every step of your infrastructure project with a personalized approach tailored to your specific needs.
Expertise
Discover our expertise in infrastructure and major projects
Projects
-
Jean-Sébastien Desroches
Partner, Lawyer / Montréal
-
Christian Dumoulin
Partner, Lawyer / Sherbrooke
-
Jessy Menard
Lawyer / Montréal
-
André Vautour
Partner, Lawyer / Montréal
-
-
Read more
Public construction: Prompt payments and simplified dispute resolution
On July 30, 2025, the Regulation respecting prompt payments and the prompt settlement of disputes with regard to construction work (hereinafter the “Regulation”) was published in the Gazette officielle du Québec. Since September 8, 2025, the Regulation has been coming into force gradually,1 in response to requests from some involved the construction industry. The Regulation applies to the majority of construction contracts concluded with public bodies covered by the Act respecting contracting by public bodies (chapter C-65.1, r. 8.01) (hereinafter the “ACPB”). The Regulation aims to fix chronic payment delays in the construction industry by establishing binding standards to speed up the payment process for contractors and subcontractors involved in public contracts covered by the ACPB. It also introduces a rapid dispute resolution process. The Regulation thus complements An Act mainly to promote Québec-sourced and responsible procurement by public bodies, to reinforce the integrity regime of enterprises and to increase the powers of the Autorité des marchés publics.2 The following is a summary of some of the Regulation’s key provisions. Cases of application and exclusions The Regulation applies to all public construction contracts and subcontracts subject to the ACPB, with the following exceptions:3 contracts entered into in an emergency because of a threat to the safety of persons or property contracts entered into for the purpose of activities on foreign soil of a delegation general, a delegation or another form of representation of Québec abroad a monetary claim to compensate for a loss of profit, productivity or a business opportunity that a contractor considers it has suffered because of a change relating to the scope of the work specified in a public contract or public subcontract, or to the conditions for its performance Deadlines and schedule imposed by the Regulations The Regulation establishes a rigid payment request, refusal and payment schedule: Request for payment4 Sent by the general contractor to the public body: 1st day of the month Sent by the subcontractor to the general contractor: 25th day of the month Refusal to pay5 Sent by the general contractor to the subcontractor: 21st day of the month Sent by the public body to the general contractor: Last day of the month Payment deadline (if applicable)6 By the public body to the general contractor: Last day of the month By the general contractor to the subcontractor: 5th day of 2nd month From a subcontractor to another: 10th day of 2nd month If the subcontracting chain has more than two subcontracting levels, the payment deadline is extended by five days for each additional level. These deadlines are intended make the payment process uniform and predictable. It is possible for parties to amend their requests after they have been sent.7 Request for payment A request for payment must be in writing and contain the following information : the name and address of the contractor and the contact information of the representative of the contractor the number of the public contract a detailed description of the work carried out, the expenses incurred and any other element for which a sum of money is claimed the periods associated with elements claimed a breakdown of the total amount claimed8 If the public body requires the presentation of supporting documents with a request for payment from a contractor party to a contract, it must include such condition in the contract and specify which documents are required. The same principle applies to subcontracts between contractors and their subcontractors.9 Importantly, the public body may allow the contractor to amend the request for payment to correct any deficiency, except for requests rendered invalid by the date on which they were sent. If no question of invalidity has been raised with the contractor before the deadline to indicate a refusal to pay, the payment request will be deemed valid.10 Refusal to pay A refusal to pay must be expressed in a written notice containing the following information: the part of the total amount claimed that is refused a description of the work, expenses or elements of the request for payment to which the refusal applies the grounds for the refusal and the contractual or legal provisions on which they are based11 The refusal of a request for payment cannot be based solely on the fact that the work carried out is the result of a change to the contract and that, when the request for payment was sent, the value of the change had yet to be agreed on or determined.12 Payments and withholdings In certain circumstances, the public body may withhold any sum claimed by the contractor: A sum sufficient to cover any reservations for apparent defects or poor workmanship in the work.13 A sum sufficient to repair any damage caused by the general contractor or a subcontractor to the work.14 A sum previously paid to the general contractor for work performed by one of its subcontractors to ensure that the latter’s claims are paid by the general contractor or to enable the public body to pay these claims itself. This right to withhold exists regardless of whether the subcontractor can invoke a legal hypothec on the construction or not.15 A sum sufficient to pay the claims of persons other than the contractor’s subcontractors can invoke a construction legal hypothec on the work and who have given notice of their contract to the contractor, for work completed or the materials or services supplied after the notice was given.16 Up to 10% of the sum owed to ensure performance of the contract, provided that this possibility and its terms are stipulated in the contract. A general contractor may, in turn, withhold sums from its subcontractors, provided that a written agreement allows this and that the withholding does not exceed the withholding applied to the contractor by the public body. Each level of subcontracting can avail itself of this right, with the necessary modifications.17 All sums payable to the contractor if it has not provided all closeout documents, including the certificate issued by the CNESST in accordance with the law and final acquittances from subcontractors.18 Except in the last two cases, a general contractor may offer the public body sufficient security in lieu of the withholding, such as a bond or a letter of guarantee from a bank. In turn, the general contractor may deduct from a payment owed to one of its subcontractors an amount representing the sum claimed by that subcontractor for work, where that work has been identified in a notice of refusal issued by another debtor in the contracting chain. To avail itself of this right, the contractor must first have sent the subcontractor a copy of the notice of refusal on which it is relying.19 Subcontractors, for their part, must send the notice of deduction to their own subcontractors, if any, within two days of receiving the notice.20 In all cases, the Regulation provides for the release of the deductions applied when the conditions for release are met. Prompt dispute settlement The Regulation introduces a dispute settlement process by which the parties have recourse to a third-person decider after having attempted to settle the dispute amicably.21 Initiated by a “request for intervention,” the process is intended to be rapid, with decisions to be made within 50 days of the designation of the third-person decider.22 More specifically, this mechanism provides for the following stages and deadlines: Stages Time allowed Request for intervention 90 days after work accepted or completed* Other contracting party’s response 5 days Designation of the third-person decider 5 days Outline of claims by applicant 5 days Detailed response from other contracting party 15 days Decider’s decision 50 days from the designation date (this period may be extended for a maximum of 15 days) Payment, if any 20 days after decision rendered * In the case of a contract between a general contractor and a public body, the request for intervention must be notified to the other contracting party no later than 90 days after the date on which the work was accepted without reservation, or, if accepted with reservation, the date on which the public body declares that it is satisfied with the repairs or corrections made to the work. In the case of a subcontract, the request for intervention must be notified no later than 90 days from the date the work the parties agreed on is completed.23 The Regulation also provides for the following: One dispute, one request for intervention – Although a request for intervention can relate to one dispute alone, a party cannot dissociate the constituting elements of the dispute in order to file multiple requests or otherwise act to abuse the right to have recourse to a third-person decider. Choice of third-person decider – Only persons whose names appear in the register kept by the Minister of Justice under the Regulation may act as third-person deciders. It is up to the party proposing a third-person decider to ensure that the person is available. In the event of disagreement, the parties draw lots. Procedure – As long as they ensure that the procedure is equitable and complies with the principle of proportionality, the third-person decider can conduct the intervention according to the procedure they determine. Also, unless the third-person decider decides otherwise, the proceedings are conducted orally, whereas testimony is given by way of a written affidavit. No lawyers – Parties cannot be represented by a lawyer during proceedings, although a lawyer may advise them. Confidentiality – The entire intervention remains confidential, subject to agreement between the parties or legal obligations. Third-person decider’s fees – As a general rule, the third-person decider’s fees are allocated equally between the parties (50-50), although the third-person decider may depart from this allocation if they consider that a party’s actions during the intervention were harmful, in particular because of abusive conduct or failure to meet deadlines. The third-person decider’s fees are capped according to the value of the dispute. Conclusion This new compulsory scheme now imposes, for cases covered, a prompt payment process and speeds up the settlement of disputes arising during the performance of the majority of public construction contracts. It will have major repercussions on the practices of contractors, subcontractors and public bodies alike. The imposition of the strict deadlines by the Regulation could require contractors and subcontractors to improve their internal processes to better process payment requests and properly document potential claims. Although the Regulation is intended to simplify and accelerate payments, some contractors and subcontractors may find it difficult to meet the imposed deadlines, especially in large-scale projects involving many stakeholders, as delays are likely to be passed on from one level of subcontractor to another. Whether this system will be successful will depend on the ability of the parties to quickly adapt to the new requirements and to make effective use of the third-person decider to resolve disputes. If you have any questions or need advice, we invite you to contact a member of our specialized construction law team at Lavery. Section 94 of the Regulation. SQ, 2022, c. 18. Sections 32 and 33 of the Regulation. Section 5 of the Regulation. Section 10 of the Regulation. Section 15 of the Regulation. Sections 7 and 8 of the Regulation. Section 5 of the Regulation. Section 6 para. 1 of the Regulation. Section 6 of the Regulation. Section 11 of the Regulation. Section 12 para. 1 of the Regulation. Section 22 of the Regulation. Section 23 of the Regulation. Section 25 of the Regulation. Section 26 of the Regulation. Section 20 of the Regulation. Section 28 of the Regulation. Section 16 of the Regulation. Section 16 of the Regulation. Sections 34 to 76 of the Regulation. Section 63 of the Regulation. Section 34 of the Regulation.
-
Read more
2024 Review of Real Estate Law Highlights in Quebec
As we keenly usher in 2025, we thought we would have a quick recap on changes affecting real estate law in Quebec in 2024. Let’s have a look back on the past year and on news deserving some attention and follow-up in 2025. This is not a comprehensive list, but a reminder that much has happened in the real estate sector. In terms of rental housing construction, the Real Property (GST/HST) Regulations introduced an enhanced GST rebate for residential rental properties, for construction beginning between September 14, 2023 and December 31, 2030, and whose end date is set no later than December 31, 2035. The procedure for authenticating a Canadian document to be used in a foreign country has been standardized for countries that are party to the Hague Apostille Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents. Bylaw 20-20-20 was amended to lighten the financial burden on real estate developers for the construction of affordable social housing in Montréal until the end of 2026. In terms of housing rental, the Act to limit lessors’ right of eviction and to enhance the protection of senior lessees has imposed a moratorium on the eviction of lessees by lessors who want to subdivide, expand or change the use of a dwelling, until June 2027, in addition to providing more protection for lessees aged 65 or over against eviction or repossession of a dwelling, when they have been living at the dwelling for at least 10 years and their income is equal or less than 125% of the income that would qualify them for low-rental housing based on applicable regulations. The Competition Act was amended to further regulate property controls, including the use of exclusivity clauses and restrictive covenants in existing commercial leases. The Competition Act was also amended to fight greenwashing. In the real estate industry, developers now have the burden to prove the environmental claims in respect to their properties. The increase in the inclusion rate for capital gains was announced in the federal budget in April 2024. The inclusion rate will go from 50% to 66.66% on all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts, in addition to individuals for the portion of capital gains exceeding $250,000 in a given year. Considering the potential change in government and the fact that these measures have no force of law, stay tuned for developments on this matter. Tax authorities plan to increase applicable withholding rates for the sale of a taxable Canadian property by a non-resident of Canada starting January 1, 2025. As a result, the withholding rates for disposals made as of that date have increased significantly further to the increase in the inclusion rate for capital gains. Again, there is, however, still uncertainty on whether this measure will come into force. Bill 86 amending, among other things, the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities and the Act respecting the acquisition of farm land by non-residents was tabled and introduced to the National Assembly of Quebec by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, André Lamontagne. The amendments aim, in particular, to control the acquisition of farm land and fight against the acquisition of farm land by foreign investors. Stay tuned for changes in this bill. The Act to amend various legislative provisions with respect to housing has “opened the door” for municipalities to authorize housing projects before February 21, 2027, that deviate from local planning bylaws, provided that established conditions are met. Municipalities have been granted discretionary power they can use to fast-track construction projects in 2025. Following this year full of developments in the real estate sector, our real estate law team is motivated and ready to answer all your questions and requests. Do you have any other topics in mind? Share them with us and feel free to contact us for a further discussion. Have a great 2025!
-
Read more
Financing Quebec’s Energy Transition: Unlocking the Potential of Flow-Through Shares
Quebec has set ambitious energy transition and industrial decarbonization targets. The shift to greener practices has to be taken in a context where our energy consumption could rapidly grow under the combined effect of a number of factors, such as the reindustrialization of our economy, population growth, transport electrification and the potential for artificial intelligence to consume vast amounts of energy. Investing in the development of energy infrastructure is therefore critically important, as an abundance of energy is key to economic prosperity. The problem is that public finances are already stretched to the limit with the need to renovate our aging infrastructure, among other things. Encouraging private equity investment is thus vital, and tax incentives can be very effective in this respect. The American example In 2022, the United States passed its Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with the goal of stimulating investment in the renewable energy sector, in particular. More specifically, the IRA altered or created a number of tax credits to encourage private investment.1 Over the past two years, US businesses have announced a total of almost US$276 billion in new investments in clean energy generation and the capturing or elimination of carbon dioxide and other forms of industrial decarbonization, an increase of 34% on the two years previous.2 The IRA is effective in that it takes the respective situations of various energy sector stakeholders into account in a creative, flexible and pragmatic way, especially where taxation is involved. Energy project promoters often have to wait many years for their projects to generate income and profits, even though the banks and other investment funds they solicit financing from can be presumed to be operating profitable businesses. The tax losses that occur in the years during which such projects are designed and built are therefore of little interest to developers, but of immediate interest to investors. And so, a tax equity market has emerged, in which businesses subject to taxes can invest in the shares of entities set up to develop such projects so as to benefit from tax credits and faster depreciation. Typically, the entity that cashes in the investment and develops the project distributes 99% of income, losses and tax credits to investors until a predetermined return is achieved. Once that return is achieved, the investor’s share of the benefits decreases, and the developer has the option of buying out the investor’s residual share. The IRA has transformed how federal clean energy tax credits are monetized, and it is now possible to buy and sell such credits without having to make a long-term investment. For businesses, this new way of doing things is an additional and attractive way to participate in the growing tax credit market.3 In 2023, the volume of the tax equity market for American projects was around US$20 to 21 billion, up about US$18 billion from the previous year.4 It appears that the trend will continue. It is estimated that the value of the current market, which is particularly attractive to banks, is set to double to US$50 billion a year by 2025.5 The equivalent of flow-through shares The Quebec and Canadian tax deductions mechanism that most closely resembles the US tax equity market is probably flow-through shares. Through these, businesses in the mining and renewable energy sectors can transfer their mining exploration expenses and other expenses—specifically designated as eligible—to investors, who can then deduct them from their own taxable incomes.6 These businesses can thus issue shares at a higher price than they would receive for common shares to finance their exploration and development operations. Investors are willing to pay a higher price in return for the tax deductions afforded by the eligible expenses incurred by the issuing businesses, which can amount to a maximum of 120% of the equity invested in the shares.7 Investors can also claim a 15% or 30% federal tax credit. However, because tax incentives cannot be transferred, our mechanism is more rigid than the American one, and it can only be applied to mineral exploration and development expenses and certain specific expenditures related to renewable energy and energy conservation projects, such as electricity generation using renewable sources like wind, solar energy and geothermal energy.8 With ambition and innovation comes the need to take action Quebec could draw inspiration from the IRA to increase the attractiveness of flow-through shares and broaden their scope of application, thereby creating a new tool to finance the energy transition. The renewable energy sector is similar to the mining sector in many respects, not least in terms of the considerable amount of capital required to build the infrastructure needed to operate a mine or energy generation facility. The flow-through share mechanism, which is well-established and popular with investors,9 could be just as successful in our energy transition context. Making such incentives easier to transfer would also drive the emergence of a market similar to the US tax equity market. A number of Québec flagship companies, such as Hydro-Québec,10 Innergex11 and Boralex,12 are also very ambitious when it comes to developing large-scale energy projects. They face major financing challenges, as do those in the industrial decarbonization and infrastructure renewal sectors. Innovation is necessary to meet these challenges and make the transition to a more sustainable, but just as prosperous, world, and to do so in good time.13 Link Rhodium Group and MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR), Clean Investment Monitor, link Brandon Hill, How to take advantage of tax credit transferability though the Inflation Reduction Act, Thomson Reuters Institute, April 16, 2024, link Allison Good, Renewables project finance to keep pace in 2024, but tax equity rule looms, S&P Global, January 12, 2024, link Lesley Hunter and Mason Vliet, The Risk Profile of Renewable Energy Tax Equity Investments, American Council on Renewable Energy, December 2023, link Link, page in French only Link Link Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, Flow-through shares & the mineral exploration tax credit explained, link Link Link Link The authors would like to acknowledge the participation and the work done by Sophie Poirier in this publication
-
Beyond Code: Powering AI; Canada’s Moment?
The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer just about algorithms, data, and software. Once confined to the minds of computer scientists, AI now depends on massive physical infrastructure: expanded electricity generation, resilient transmission and distribution grids, and high-performance data centres, supported by advanced semiconductors, critical minerals, and complex global supply chains. As AI penetrates every sector, from defense1 to finance2, it is driving surging demand for reliable, affordable, low-carbon power; leading-edge hardware manufacturing; and the construction and modernization of digital infrastructure. This shift creates material challenges as well as opportunities, particularly for resource-rich countries such as Canada. This article first outlines AI’s infrastructure requirements and then examines how Canada could position itself as a key player by leveraging its energy and critical-mineral endowments, while identifying critical blind spots in current strategy. Infrastructures Required for AI The Need for Stable Energy The electricity demand driven by the expansion of data centres and AI applications is surging. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that data centres consumed approximately 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024, roughly 1.5% of global electricity consumption. This figure could more than double by 20303, to roughly 945 TWh, with AI a primary growth driver. In some economies, data centres could represent more than 20% of electricity demand growth by 2030, while in the United States, demand could grow more than thirtyfold by 2035, to 123 gigawatts, from 4 gigawatts in 20244. Meeting this rising demand requires new generation capacity. Building renewable, nuclear, or gas-fired plants poses significant regulatory, environmental, and logistical challenges. Renewables face land-use constraints, and wind and solar intermittency is at odds with AI’s round-the-clock power requirements. Nuclear entails high upfront costs, licensing and safety requirements, and long lead times. Several recent data centre and AI infrastructure projects, including those led by xAI5, Oracle6, and Meta7 have turned to natural gas generation, citing its speed of deployment and ability to bypass grid interconnection delays. The IEA emphasizes that accelerating deployment of clean generation is essential to meet AI-driven demand and climate commitments. In practice, countries must balance the urgency of capacity expansion with decarbonization targets, an increasingly complex policy challenge. The stability and scalability of AI infrastructure also depend on grid modernization and the strategic siting of data centres. The IEA emphasizes that “a sole focus on increasing electricity generation won’t be enough […] countries must also think about their infrastructure.” Deloitte similarly notes that “the AI ambitions of the [U.S.] government and industry come up against the grid’s capacity to power or even interconnect data centers, as there is currently a seven-year wait for some requests to connect to the grid.” Material Needs for AI Infrastructure Beyond energy, AI relies on a wide range of materials: to build data centres (concrete, steel, copper, cooling systems) and to equip them (semiconductors and specialized chips, cabling, rare earths, and high-purity metals). The IEA warns that AI-driven growth will add pressure to critical-mineral supply chains—especially for copper and aluminium8, but also nickel, gallium, and silicon. This pressure is not unique to AI: the global shift to electrification already fuels intense competition for the same scarce resources. The IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 20259 projects that demand for copper, lithium, and nickel could double or even triple by 2030, while supply remains concentrated in a few regions and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. In short, AI rests on heavy physical infrastructure underpinned by a finite, geopolitically sensitive mineral base. The growing overlap between AI and the broader energy transition underscores a key point: the sustainability and scalability of AI hinge as much on resource management and industrial policy as on innovation. Canada as a Potential Key Player Energy: Nuclear Development and Hydro-Québec’s Ambitions Canada is a major energy producer, generating approximately 639 TWh of electricity in 2022, roughly 70% from renewables10. This baseline gives Canada a comparative advantage in powering energy-intensive digital infrastructure, such as AI data centres. Building on this foundation, Canada is expanding its nuclear capacity. In 2023, Ontario Power Generation announced plans to build up to four small modular reactors (SMRs) at its Darlington site, together totalling about 1,200 megawatts (MW) of clean electricity11. These developments form part of a national effort to deploy next-generation nuclear technology12 that will provide stable, low-carbon baseload power to support industrial electrification and the growth of AI infrastructure. Meanwhile, in Québec, Hydro-Québec is investing heavily to modernize and expand renewable capacity. Its Action Plan 2035 outlines $90–110 billion to add 8,000–9,000 MW of new capacity by 2035, primarily through hydro and wind. The plan also calls for approximately 5,000 km of high-voltage transmission lines to connect new generation and improve reliability across the province13. Canada’s cold climate offers an operational advantage: data centres can significantly reduce cooling costs by using free-cooling techniques. For example, a Winnipeg data centre leverages ambient winter air to reduce energy use and costs14. This cold climate, together with hydroelectric and nuclear capacity and Canada’s endowment of critical minerals required to build AI infrastructure, gives Canada strong prospects for AI-related investment. The Blind Spots in Canada’s Strategy Canada was the first G7 country to launch a national AI strategy in 2017: the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy. The strategy aims to position Canada as a global AI leader by fostering research excellence, developing talent, and promoting commercialization. However, it focuses heavily on intellectual leadership and policy principles, with limited measures to address the physical requirements of large-scale AI deployment, including data centre capacity, digital infrastructure, and energy integration15. Building on this framework, the federal government announced the AI Strategy Task Force on September 26, 202516. The initiative will address safe AI, public trust, and infrastructure. The task force, comprising experts from academia, industry, and civil society, will provide recommendations. Nonetheless, details on specific measures remain limited. A major structural challenge is weak coordination among federal, provincial, and local authorities, as well as with Indigenous and community stakeholders17. While the federal government sets broad ambitions for AI, the energy transition, and digital sovereignty, implementation depends on provincial jurisdiction over energy, land use, and industrial planning. This fragmented governance results in inconsistent priorities and delays. The Wonder Valley data centre in northern Alberta, announced as a US$70 billion initiative to build one of the world’s largest AI computing hubs, illustrates these tensions18. Despite support from the provincial government, the project faced strong opposition from the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, citing inadequate early consultation and environmental and treaty-rights concerns. The controversy reflects a broader issue of social acceptability, a recurring barrier to large-scale industrial and digital infrastructure projects across Canada. Overlapping regulations and permitting delays significantly hamper Canada’s ability to develop large-scale infrastructure. The Business Council of Canada describes the permitting system for major projects as “overly complex, time-consuming and a major impediment to attracting investment,” 19 noting that projects may face decades of approvals before construction begins. This maze of federal-provincial rules introduces uncertainty and cost escalation, especially problematic for high-capital, rapidly evolving sectors such as AI infrastructure. In Québec, two strategic challenges stand out. First, the province has long reserved large blocks of electricity capacity for traditional energy-intensive industries, especially metallurgical and mining operations, while deprioritizing data centres. Hydro-Québec explicitly stated in 2022 that it “is in no way working to attract data centers,” reflecting hesitancy to dedicate scarce energy resources to sectors perceived as offering limited employment or local value creation. This cautious approach has left numerous projects, including major initiatives by Google in Beauharnois, waiting years for approval or grid connection. The provincial stance prioritizes long-term industrial diversification and resource-based manufacturing over rapid digital infrastructure expansion20. Second, Québec’s Action Plan 2035 emphasizes wind and solar as complements to hydroelectricity, but their intermittency challenges the continuous power required by AI data centres. While this policy aligns with decarbonization goals, it may make Québec less attractive to hyperscale data centre operators, many of whom now favour regions with stable nuclear or natural gas baseload generation, such as Ontario or certain U.S. states. Taken together, these challenges reveal a structural gap between Canada’s ambition to lead in AI and its capacity to provide the physical and regulatory foundations needed to sustain it. A recent partnership between the U.S. government, Westinghouse Electric Company, Brookfield Asset Management, and Cameco Corporation to deploy at least US$80 billion in new nuclear capacity—explicitly linked to AI data centres and compute—shows the global race to build AI’s physical backbone is already underway21. Conclusion The emergence of artificial intelligence marks a profound transformation in the global economy, one that is as material and infrastructural as it is digital and cognitive. Data centers, energy systems, and supply chains for critical minerals have become the true arteries of the AI age. As such, the countries that succeed in this new era will not be those that simply pioneer algorithms, but those that can secure, scale, and sustain the physical foundations of intelligence itself. For Canada, the path forward hinges on bridging the gap between its research excellence and its industrial capabilities. With abundant clean energy, critical minerals, and a strong technological ecosystem, Canada holds the ingredients to become a champion of sustainable AI infrastructure. Yet, without a coherent, long-term coordination between federal and provincial levels and a streamlined regulatory environment, it risks remaining on the periphery of the next technological revolution. Original article: https://emagazine.renewcanada.net/?pid=ODk8923274&v=3.10&p=31 Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants (2025). Comprendre l’IA de défense. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/comprendre-lia-defense KPMG (2025). L’IA dans la fonction finance. International Energy Agency (2025). Energy and AI. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/601eaec9-ba91-4623-819b-4ded331ec9e8/EnergyandAI.pdf Deloitte (2025). Can US infrastructure keep up with the AI economy?. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/power-and-utilities/data-center-infrastructure-artificial-intelligence.html Data Centers Going Off-Grid With Natural Gas to ‘Find Any Way to Get Power’ https://www.naturalgasintel.com/news/data-centers-going-off-grid-with-natural-gas-to-find-any-way-to-get-power/ 'Go Where The Gas Is': Data Centers Follow Fracking In Search For Power https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center-power/go-where-the-gas-is-data-centers-follow-the-fracking-in-search-for-power-131552 Ibid. See 3 International Energy Agency (2025). Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ef5e9b70-3374-4caa-ba9d-19c72253bfc4/GlobalCriticalMineralsOutlook2025.pdf Government of Canada (2025). Energy Fact Book, 2024-2025: Clean power and low carbon fuels. https://energy-information.canada.ca/en/energy-facts/clean-power-low-carbon-fuels Government of Ontario (2023). Ontario Building More Small Modular Reactors to Power Province’s Growth. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003248/ontario-building-more-small-modular-reactors-to-power-provinces-growth Governement of Canada (2024). Canada’s Small Modular Reactor Action Plan. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-sources/nuclear-energy-uranium/canada-s-small-modular-reactor-action-plan Government of Québec (2023). Vers un Québec décarboné et prospère, Plan d’action 2025. https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/a-propos/pdf/plan-action-2035.pdf Economic Development Winnipeg. (n.d). Winnipeg’s cold climate means big savings for MTS Data Centres’ clients. https://www.winnipegedt.com/newsroom/read,post/596/winnipeg-s-cold-climate-means-big-savings-for-mts-data-centres-clients?dismiss=day Government of Canada (2025). Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/ai-strategy/en Government of Canada (2025). Government of Canada launches AI Strategy Task Force and public engagement on the development of the next AI strategy. https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2025/09/government-of-canada-launches-ai-strategy-task-force-and-public-engagement-on-the-development-of-the-next-ai-strategy.html The Dais (2024). From Potential to Performance: Roundtable Report on Canada’s Investment in AI Compute Infrastructure. https://dais.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI-Roundtable-Summary-Report_V4.pdf E. Rubayita (2025). Alberta First Nation voices 'grave concern' over Kevin O'Leary's proposed $70B AI data centre. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-first-nation-voices-grave-concern-over-kevin-o-leary-s-proposed-70b-ai-data-centre-1.7431550 Business Council of Canada (2025). Stifled by red tape. https://www.thebusinesscouncil.ca/report/stifled-by-red-tape/ L. Arbour and S. Mayer (2025). Les centres de données au Québec. Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale. https://premierelecture.bibliotheque.assnat.qc.ca/2025/02/10/les-centres-de-donnees-au-quebec/ Brookfield (2025). United States Government, Brookfield and Cameco Announce Transformational Partnership to Deliver Long-term Value Using Westinghouse Nuclear Reactor Technology. https://bam.brookfield.com/press-releases/united-states-government-brookfield-and-cameco-announce-transformational-partnership
-
-
Adopting a collaborative delivery model: 10 key takeaways from the Alto project to benefit the infrastructure industry
A look back at a panel discussion with Alto, CDPQ Infra and Lavery at the Grand Forum hosted by the Infrastructure Council On November 26, 2025, infrastructure industry leaders have come together this week for a panel discussion on collaborative delivery in infrastructure projects, with a focus on the Alto project, the future high-speed rail project that will transform intercity travel in Canada. The panel, moderated by Lavery partner David Tournier, featured: Sophie Lussier, Executive Vice-President and Head of Corporate Services, Organizational Performance and Secretariat, CDPQ Infra Félix Turgeon, Chief Legal Officer, Alto The panellists shared insights from an innovative public-private partnership along with lessons that apply across the industry. 10 takeaways from the Alto project and collaborative delivery models 1- The largest infrastructure project in Canadian history Alto is Canada’s first ever high-speed rail project, requiring simultaneous early-stage involvement of experts from both the public and private sectors. 2- A collaborative model chosen to create added value This model blends private-sector innovation and efficiency with public-sector vision, governance and accountability. 3- Proactive, structured risk management Risks are identified and allocated from the outset based on each partner’s expertise, a major shift from traditional models. 4- Integrated governance for quick and consistent decision making Joint committees, integrated working groups and ongoing coordination mechanisms help maintain strategic alignment. 5- Strong, clearly articulated public goals The project is intended to: Increase ridership Improve the passenger experience Reduce the environmental footprint Improve accessibility Enhance safety and security Minimize impact on taxpayers Support reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples 6- A project recognized for its potential to transform the country’s future The government wants to accelerate project delivery while ensuring regulatory processes are followed and consultations are held, leaving no room for compromise. 7- Strong community and stakeholder engagement Planning and defining the corridor involves meaningful, ongoing dialogue with affected residents, municipalities and Indigenous communities. 8- A private partner committed for the long haul Cadence will play a role not only in designing and building the project but also in operating and maintaining the future network, aligning its incentives around sustainable performance. 9- A culture of collaboration that is being actively reinforced General meetings, internal newsletters, Alto Academies, and a co-located team, all supporting continuous, day-to-day collaboration that keeps the momentum going. 10- Growing alignment with international trends and innovative practices Bill 62, the Alto–Cadence partnership and international examples show that collaborative delivery models are emerging as a key driver of success for major projects in Canada and Quebec. Panel recap The panel shed light on how collaborative approaches are reshaping delivery models for the most complex infrastructure projects, with the panellists explaining that early stakeholder involvement, transparency and structured risk-sharing make these approaches critical to delivering projects of such magnitude. The discussion highlighted: The integrated governance framework jointly implemented by Alto and Cadence A dynamic based on transparency and quick issue resolution The strategic value of involving private-sector partners early in the project The central role of consultations and social acceptability in moving a transformative project forward Essential elements of a collaborative delivery model Before diving into the Alto case, the panel briefly touched on what collaborative delivery means for infrastructure projects. Unlike traditional models, where the client designs and the contractor executes, collaborative delivery models rely on an integrated approach that brings project owners, designers and contractors together earlier in the project life cycle. This approach involves: Shared governance and joint decision making Integrated risk management Open-book accounting to jointly determine a target cost Mechanisms for sharing savings and cost overruns A commitment to avoid claims and resolve issues internally These models foster greater cooperation and transparency, improving risk sharing and leading to fewer claims. This helps teams stay on schedule and ultimately boosts overall project performance. In Quebec, the trend has gained additional support from Bill 62, passed in 2024. The Bill introduced new “partnership contracts,” making it easier for public bodies to bring in contractors early on and take a collaborative approach to project delivery. Elsewhere, large-scale projects such as Union Station in Toronto, Terminal 5 at Heathrow, and Waaban Bridge in Kingston have shown that collaboration becomes a powerful driver of performance when governance, culture, and contractual frameworks are aligned. And that’s particularly true for non-standard projects. The Alto project, which starts with a five-year co-development phase prior to construction, perfectly illustrates this approach. Conclusion The Alto panel confirmed one thing: to transform the infrastructure industry, we must first transform our approach to collaboration. The Alto–Cadence partnership shows how integrated governance, structured risk sharing and a culture of cooperation help teams navigate complexity more effectively, while generating lasting value for the public.