Take action now
Take the fight to Queen’s Park and Ottawa.
Toronto has pushed this issue as far as its current powers allow.
Ontario controls crucial rules around municipal approval and access to
the electricity system. Ottawa controls federal procurement, AI
infrastructure funding and the standards used to define sovereign
Canadian computing. Sign either petition — or both.
Petition to the Government of Ontario
Require public approval for major data centres.
Ask Queen’s Park to require public approval for major data centres
and apply new provincial rules to unfinished expansions.
- Require site-specific rezoning and public consultation for major projects.
- Require an elected municipal decision instead of relying only on delegated review.
- Do not grandfather major new capacity that has not yet been built out or energized.
- Use electricity-connection rules to protect ratepayers and host communities.
Sign the Ontario Petition
Petition to the Government of Canada
Define and enforce Canadian data sovereignty.
Ask Ottawa to define and enforce what qualifies as genuinely
sovereign Canadian AI and computing infrastructure.
- Distinguish data residency from genuine Canadian control.
- Set standards for jurisdiction, administration, encryption-key custody and foreign access.
- Tie federal funding and sensitive government contracts to those standards.
- Require consequences when public money is obtained through materially false sovereignty claims.
Sign the Federal Petition
Why now: governments are writing the rules for major data
centres and sovereign AI infrastructure now. Ontario’s current Data Centre
Playbook consultation is scheduled to close on September 12, 2026.
Residents have asked me a very reasonable question about the proposed
expansion of the data centre at 3650 Danforth Avenue:
If the community does not want a project of this scale moving ahead
without proper scrutiny, why can’t Toronto City Council simply vote on it?
The answer exposes a much larger problem with the way major data centres
are currently regulated.
Under the existing planning framework, the proposal at 3650 Danforth is
proceeding through a delegated site-plan process. It is not being treated
like a major rezoning application requiring a statutory public meeting and
a final vote of City Council.
That makes very little sense for infrastructure of this scale. STACK
markets its Toronto campus as a 56-megawatt facility on approximately
19 acres. Whatever anyone’s view of this particular project, infrastructure
consuming electricity on that scale raises legitimate questions about the
power grid, surrounding neighbourhoods, employment lands, emergency
generators, noise, jobs, public benefit and Canadian control of critical
digital infrastructure.
That is why we are launching two petitions. They address two different
problems — and two levels of government that have powers Toronto simply
does not have.
3650
Danforth Avenue — existing data-centre campus and proposed expansion site.
56 MW
STACK’s marketed capacity for its Toronto campus.
25–0
Council vote adopting the amended due-diligence motion among members voting.
What Toronto has already done
In July, I brought a motion to Toronto City Council called
Ensuring Due Diligence on Data Centres in Scarborough Southwest.
Council adopted the amended motion 25–0 among members voting.
Council asked City staff to coordinate the 3650 Danforth application with
Toronto’s broader review of major data centres, examine the City’s
regulatory powers, investigate issues including electricity, water, noise,
environmental effects, employment lands and data sovereignty, and obtain
additional independent scrutiny of the project’s noise impacts.
Council also formally asked the Province to work with Toronto on its
emerging provincial framework for data centres.
But the motion was not — and legally could not simply become — a City
Council order cancelling the project. That is why the next stage of this
fight has to involve Queen’s Park and Ottawa.
Queen’s Park
Why Ontario matters so much
Ontario is developing a new Data Centre Playbook for
deciding how major data centres should receive access to the electricity
system. The Province’s proposed approach already recognizes that these
projects should be assessed on more than whether somebody can physically
build one.
Ontario is considering economic benefits, electricity-system impacts,
community benefits, data security and digital sovereignty. It is also
considering special rules intended to ensure that major data centres pay
the costs they impose on the electricity system rather than passing those
costs on to existing electricity customers.
Ontario has also changed its electricity legislation so that the Province
can establish special connection requirements for major new electricity
loads. That creates a potentially powerful distinction between an
existing lawful operation and future capacity that has not yet been
energized.
A company may have a planning application in progress, but that should
not automatically give it a permanent right to tens of megawatts of
future electricity capacity.
No grandfathering of unfinished expansions
The existing operating phase is not the target. The proposed expansion
is. Ontario’s new rules should apply to every major increment of
data-centre capacity that has not yet been energized, including projects
whose planning applications are already underway.
A public decision for infrastructure of this scale
Major data centres and major expansions should require site-specific
rezoning, public notice, a public meeting and an elected municipal
decision. Ontario can also require municipal concurrence before
significant new electricity capacity is allocated.
No grandfathering for unfinished expansion: if major new data-centre
capacity has not yet been energized, it should have to meet the new
provincial rules.
Consultation should happen before the important decisions are made
Residents should receive understandable information about the size of the
project, its electricity requirements, noise and backup generation,
environmental impacts, expected employment and the benefits being offered
to the host community.
Residents should be able to ask questions. The proponent should have to
respond. And local elected representatives should have to make a decision
on the record. For infrastructure of this scale, that should be the
minimum democratic standard.
Ottawa
The federal government has a different responsibility
The federal petition addresses a different issue:
Canadian data sovereignty.
Data centres are increasingly described as critical infrastructure for
Canada’s AI economy. Governments are investing public money in domestic
computing capacity, and Ottawa is working on sovereign Canadian cloud and
computing infrastructure.
But a server being physically located in Canada does not necessarily mean
Canada has full control over it. A company operating here may also be
subject to another country’s laws. Corporate control, administrative
access, encryption systems, subcontractors and foreign legal obligations
can all affect who ultimately has power over Canadian information.
Data residency is not necessarily data sovereignty.
So what should “Canadian sovereign” actually mean?
If infrastructure is going to be described as sovereign Canadian
infrastructure — particularly when federal money, sensitive public
information or government contracts are involved — there should be a
clear and enforceable standard.
- Where is the data stored?
- Where is it processed?
- Who can administer the system?
- Who controls the encryption keys?
- What foreign laws apply to the company or its parent?
- Can workers or subcontractors outside Canada access the system?
- Who ultimately controls the company?
- What supply-chain dependencies can affect Canadian control?
And the rules need consequences
Standards without consequences are only suggestions. The federal
government can connect sovereignty requirements directly to its
financial and purchasing power.
If a company wants federal funding for sovereign AI infrastructure,
wants to host sensitive federal information, or wants preferential access
to sovereign-cloud contracts, it should have to meet the sovereign-compute
standard.
And if public money or contracts are obtained through materially false
claims about Canadian control, there should be consequences — including
loss of certification, termination of contracts and repayment of public
funds.
Why the two petitions work together
No single government controls this entire issue. An effective response
has to use the powers that actually exist at each level.
Toronto
Local planning, development, environmental review, noise scrutiny and
the municipal framework now under development.
Ontario
Municipal legislation and, critically, the rules governing access to
Ontario’s electricity system and major new electrical loads.
Canada
Federal procurement, AI-infrastructure funding and the standards used
to determine what qualifies as sovereign Canadian infrastructure.
The provincial petition says: do not allow major data centres to bypass
public approval, and do not grandfather unfinished expansions out of new
rules designed precisely because governments now understand the scale of
these projects.
The federal petition says: if Canadian sovereignty is going to be used
to justify building and publicly supporting massive digital
infrastructure, define sovereignty clearly and enforce it.
These are not anti-technology positions. Canada needs computing
infrastructure, and artificial intelligence will require enormous
computing capacity. Those facts make good public policy more important,
not less.
Why signing now matters
The rules are being written now. Ontario is deciding how
major data centres will access the electricity system, what community
benefits and protections will be required, and whether unfinished
expansions will be subject to the new framework.
Ontario’s current Data Centre Playbook consultation is scheduled to close
on September 12, 2026. This is the moment to put a clear
public position on the record: major new capacity should face public
approval, unfinished expansions should not be grandfathered out of the
new rules, and host communities should have a meaningful say.
Ottawa is making a parallel choice about sovereign Canadian AI
infrastructure. If public money, sensitive government data and federal
contracts are going to be tied to the word “sovereign,” Canada needs an
enforceable standard for who actually controls the systems.
A strong public response gives both governments a specific mandate while
those decisions are still being made.
Add your name
Choose one petition — or sign both.
Major infrastructure should require public accountability. And if
infrastructure is promoted as Canadian sovereign capacity, it should have
to prove meaningful Canadian control.