Tag Archives: data centres

AI is an energy/water hog. Where is all the power coming from? plus UN defines new “era of global water bankruptcy”

I’ve touched on the topic of AI (artificial intelligence) and water consumption before, notably in my October 16, 2023 posting “The cost of building ChatGPT” where most of the focus is on the US. I now have some Canadian stories but first, there’s the United Nations University (UNU).

Global water bankruptcy

From a January 20, 2026 United Nations University press release (also on EurekAlert), Note 1: In the front pages, there’s this unexpected link to Canada : “UNU-INWEH [United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health] gratefully acknowledges its host, the Government of Canada, and ongoing financial support from Global Affairs Canada.” Note 2: Links have been removed,

Amid chronic groundwater depletion, water overallocation, land and soil degradation, deforestation, and pollution, all compounded by global heating, a UN report today declared the dawn of an era of global water bankruptcy, inviting world leaders to facilitate “honest, science-based adaptation to a new reality.”

“Global Water Bankruptcy: Living Beyond Our Hydrological Means in the Post-Crisis Era,” argues that the familiar terms “water stressed” and “water crisis” fail to reflect today’s reality in many places: a post-crisis condition marked by irreversible losses of natural water capital and an inability to bounce back to historic baselines.

“This report tells an uncomfortable truth: many regions are living beyond their hydrological means, and many critical water systems are already bankrupt,” says lead author Kaveh Madani, Director of the UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), known as ‘The UN’s Think Tank on Water.’

Expressed in financial terms, the report says many societies have not only overspent their annual renewable water “income” from rivers, soils, and snowpack, they have depleted long-term “savings” in aquifers, glaciers, wetlands, and other natural reservoirs.

This has resulted in a growing list of compacted aquifers, subsided land in deltas and coastal cities, vanished lakes and wetlands, and irreversibly lost biodiversity.

The UNU report is based on a peer-reviewed paper in the journal of Water Resources Management that formally defines water bankruptcy as

1) persistent over-withdrawal from surface and groundwater relative to renewable inflows and safe levels of depletion; and

2) the resulting irreversible or prohibitively costly loss of water-related natural capital.

By contrast:

  • “Water stress” reflects high pressure that remains reversible
  • “Water crisis” describes acute shocks that can be overcome

The report is issued prior to a high-level meeting in Dakar, Senegal (26–27 Jan.) to prepare the 2026 UN Water Conference, to be co-hosted by the United Arab Emirates and Senegal 2-4 Dec. in the UAE. 

While not every basin and country is water-bankrupt, Madani says, “enough critical systems around the world have crossed these thresholds. These systems are interconnected through trade, migration, climate feedbacks, and geopolitical dependencies, so the global risk landscape is now fundamentally altered.”

Madani underlines the following four essential points:

  • Water cannot be protected if we allow the hydrological cycle, the climate, and the underlying natural capital that produces water to be interrupted or damaged. The world has an important and still largely untapped strategic opportunity to act.
  • Water is an issue that crosses traditional political boundaries. It belongs to north and south, and to left and right. For that reason, it can serve as a bridge to create trust and unity between and within nations. In the fragmented world we live in, water can become a powerful focus for cooperation and for aligning national security with international priorities.
  • Investment in water is also investment in mitigating climate change, biodiversity loss, and desertification. Water should not be treated only as a downstream sector affected by other environmental crises. On the contrary, targeted investment in water can address the immediate concerns of communities and nations while also advancing the objectives of the Rio Conventions (climate, biodiversity, desertification).
  • A renewed global emphasis on water could help reaccelerate stalled negotiations and potentially reenergize halted international processes. A practical and cooperative focus on water offers a way to connect urgent local needs with long-term global goals.

Hotspots

In the Middle East and North Africa region, high water stress, climate vulnerability, low agricultural productivity, energy-intensive desalination, and sand and dust storms intersect with complex political economies;

In parts of South Asia, groundwater-dependent agriculture and urbanization have produced chronic declines in water tables and local subsidence; and

In the American Southwest, the Colorado River and its reservoirs have become symbols of over-promised water.

A world in the red

Drawing on global datasets and recent scientific evidence, the report presents a stark statistical overview of trends, the overwhelming majority caused by humans:

50%: Large lakes worldwide that have lost water since the early 1990s (with 25% of humanity directly dependent on those lakes)

50%: Global domestic water now derived from groundwater

40%+: Irrigation water drawn from aquifers being steadily drained

70%: Major aquifers showing long-term decline

410 million hectares: Area ofnatural wetlands – almost equal in size to the entire European Union – erased in the past five decades

30%+: Global glacier mass lost since 1970, with entire low- and mid-latitude mountain ranges expected to lose functional glaciers altogether within decades

Dozens: Major rivers that now fail to reach the sea for parts of the year

50+ years: How long many river basins and aquifers have been overdrawing their accounts

100 million hectares: Cropland damaged by salinization alone

And the human consequences:

75%: Humanity in countries classified as water-insecure or critically water-insecure

2 billion: People living on sinking ground.

25 cm: Annual drop being experienced by some cities

4 billion: People facing severe water scarcity at least one month every year

170 million hectares: Irrigated cropland under high or very high water stress – equivalent to the areas of France, Spain, Germany, and Italy combined

US$5.1 trillion: Annual value of lost wetland ecosystem services

3 billion: People living in areas where total water storage is declining or unstable, with 50%+ of global food produced in those same stressed regions.

1.8 billion: People living under drought conditions in 2022–2023

US$307 billion: Current annual global cost of drought

2.2 billion: People who lack safely managed drinking water, while 3.5 billion lack safely managed sanitation

Says Madani: “Millions of farmers are trying to grow more food from shrinking, polluted, or disappearing water sources. Without rapid transitions toward water-smart agriculture, water bankruptcy will spread rapidly.”

A new diagnosis for a new era

A region can be flooded one year and still be water bankrupt, he adds, if long-term withdrawals exceed replenishment. In that sense, water bankruptcy is not about how wet or dry a place looks, but about balance, accounting, and sustainability.

Says Madani: As with global climate change or pandemics, a declaration of global water bankruptcy does not imply uniform impact everywhere, but that enough systems across regions and income levels have become insolvent and crossed irreversible thresholds to constitute a planetary-scale condition.

“Water bankruptcy is also global because its consequences travel,” Madani explains. “Agriculture accounts for the vast majority of freshwater use, and food systems are tightly interconnected through trade and prices. When water scarcity undermines farming in one region, the effects ripple through global markets, political stability, and food security elsewhere. This makes water bankruptcy not a series of isolated local crises, but a shared global risk that demands a new type of response: Bankruptcy management,  not crisis management.”

A call to reset the global water agenda

The report warns that the current global water agenda – largely focused on drinking water, sanitation, and incremental efficiency improvements – is no longer fit for purpose in many places and calls for a new global water agenda that:

  • Formally recognizes the state of water bankruptcy
  • Recognizes water as both a constraint and an opportunity for meeting climate, biodiversity, and land commitments
  • Elevates water issues in climate, biodiversity, and desertification negotiations, development finance, and peacebuilding processes.
  • Embeds water-bankruptcy monitoring in global frameworks, using Earth observation, AI, and integrated modelling
  • Uses water as a catalyst to accelerate cooperation between the UN Member States

In practical terms, managing water bankruptcy requires governments to focus on the following priorities:

  • Prevent further irreversible damage such as wetland loss, destructive groundwater depletion, and uncontrolled pollution
  • Rebalance rights, claims, and expectations to match degraded carrying capacity
  • Support just transitions for communities whose livelihoods must change
  • Transform water-intensive sectors, including agriculture and industry, through crop shifts, irrigation reforms, and more efficient urban systems
  • Build institutions for continuous adaptation, with monitoring systems linked to threshold-based management

The report underlines that water bankruptcy is not merely a hydrological problem, but a justice issue with deep social and political implications requiring attention at the highest levels of government and multilateral cooperation. The burdens fall disproportionately on smallholder farmers, Indigenous Peoples, low-income urban residents, women and youth while the benefits of overuse often accrued to more powerful actors.

“Water bankruptcy is becoming a driver of fragility, displacement, and conflict,” says UN Under-Secretary-General Tshilidzi Marwala, Rector of UNU. “Managing it fairly – ensuring that vulnerable communities are protected and that unavoidable losses are shared equitably – is now central to maintaining peace, stability, and social cohesion.”

“Bankruptcy management requires honesty, courage, and political will,” Madani adds. “We cannot rebuild vanished glaciers or reinflate acutely compacted aquifers. But we can prevent further loss of our remaining natural capital, and redesign institutions to live within new hydrological limits.”

Upcoming milestones —  the 2026 and 2028 UN Water Conferences, the end of the Water Action Decade in 2028, and the 2030 SDG deadline, for example — provide critical opportunities to implement this shift, he says.

“Despite its warnings, the report is not a statement of hopelessness,” adds Madani. “It is a call for honesty, realism, and transformation.  Declaring bankruptcy is not about giving up — it is about starting fresh. By acknowledging the reality of water bankruptcy, we can finally make the hard choices that will protect people, economies, and ecosystems. The longer we delay, the deeper the deficit grows.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the report,

Global Water Bankruptcy: Living Beyond Our Hydrological Means in the Post-Crisis Era (or the PDF) by Kaveh Madani. Contributors: Mir Matin, Aria Farsi, Luying Wang, Amir AghaKouchak, Mohammed Azhar, Jenna Elshurafa, Sogol Jafarzadeh, Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, Ali Mirchi, Abraham Nunbogu, Mojtaba Sadegh, Robert Sandford, Manoochehr Shirzaei, William Smyth, Hossein Tabari, MJ Tourian, Farshid Vahedifard. 2026, University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, DOI: 10.53328/INR26KAM001

AI data centre building spree in Canada (special emphasis: British Columbia [BC])

An October 18, 2025 article (with embedded videos) by Jonathan Montpetit and Yvette Brend with files from Tara Carman on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) news online website,

On a dry, hot day this summer, Kathryn Barnwell, a retired English professor, marched up the road from her home in Nanaimo, B.C [British Columbia]., to take another crack at the mayor.

Leonard Krog, a longtime friend of Barnwell’s, was standing by the entrance to a parched wooded lot, the proposed site for a data centre Krog has been backing. 

“I really, really enjoin you to think about what this [data centre] could mean for your political career,” Barnwell said, barely looking him in the eye.

Krog, who has been mayor since 2018, sees the project as a chance to modernize the city’s economy.

“The kind of jobs that would be attracted to this kind of facility are the jobs of the future,” he said.

Until three years ago, Barnwell knew little about data centres, which house the computer servers that power much of the online world. But when the plot of land near her home was rezoned for one, she began researching. She’s now one of the loudest opponents of the project in Nanaimo.

Her main concern, shared by other local opponents, is the amount of municipal drinking water the 200,000-square foot data centre would need for its cooling system. In a region beset by drought, Barnwell says similar-sized facilities can churn through 70,000 litres of potable water a day.

“Life on this planet is sustained by water. It is not sustained by data. We don’t need data the way we need water,” Barnwell said. “And we in Canada have been pretty blithe about our natural resources.”

Barnwell sees herself as part of a global resistance movement drawing attention to the environmental impact of data centres, at a moment when the tech industry is spending dizzying sums to build them. 

It’s not just BC according to the October 18, 2025 article, Note: A link has been removed,

Canada is poised to join the data centre boom. The federal government, and some provinces, have been actively courting investors, vaunting the country’s cheap electricity (much of it hydro power) and cool climate. 

At least eight projects are underway to build hyperscale data centres in Canada, according to the federal government. But as such projects face greater scrutiny around the world, Canada is jumping into the AI construction race with few mechanisms to protect its water supply.

“There’s barely any regulation in place,” said Geoff White, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an Ottawa-based consumer protection group.

Microsoft builds out in Canada

Among the big tech companies, Microsoft has taken the lead in building data centres with AI capacity in Canada. The Washington-based corporation purchased seven large tracts of land in 2021, including a golf course near Quebec City and a former department store in the Toronto suburb of Etobicoke. 

It’s in the process of turning the sites into data centres capable of powering its AI-enabled products like Azure and Copilot, an investment worth at least $1 billion.

At least two of the Microsoft data centres in Ontario have been cleared by municipal authorities to consume vast amounts of municipal drinking water.

The Etobicoke data centre, dubbed YTO 40, was approved to use up to 39.75 litres of water per second for cooling purposes, according to planning documents submitted to the city. That would be the equivalent of around 1.2 billion litres a year, or 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. 

A Microsoft data centre complex in nearby Vaughan, a city spokesperson said, is expected to consume 730 million litres of water annually. 

But according to Microsoft, its new Canadian data centres will only use a fraction of that amount, because of design features that allow them to be cooled using outdoor air and recycled rainwater. 

Alistair Speirs, general manager of Microsoft’s Azure global infrastructure, acknowledges traditional industrial cooling has “been a very water-intensive process.” He says the way Microsoft is building its data centres today is “with really that in mind.” 

“One of the great things about building in Canada, and in colder climates, is that we can just use free air cooling from outside air temperatures.”

The company said its data centres will only draw municipal water when outside temperatures are above 29.4 C or when indoor humidity levels drop below five per cent. 

Microsoft has made similar promises elsewhere. The company built a data centre in the northwestern Netherlands despite opposition from local farmers, promising it would only need between 12 and 20 million litres of water annually. 

Dutch media later revealed the data centre was consuming more than four times that — as locals were being asked to limit their own water use. 

In its response to Dutch media, Microsoft said the initial estimate had been based on “consumption at that time,” but did not specify what time period it was referring to.

Growing concerns and protests but not so much in Canada, from the October 18, 2025 article, Note: A link has been removed,

The new Microsoft data centres in Canada, which are slated to come online in the coming months, have faced no discernible opposition from the public. One Etobicoke city councillor wasn’t even aware of the YTO 40 project before CBC News contacted him.

That’s in stark contrast to communities in the United States, Europe and Latin America, where concerns about water scarcity have sparked protests.

Last month, Google shelved plans to build a $1-billion US data centre in Indianapolis, Ind., after residents organized a months-long campaign against the project. When a lawyer representing Google abruptly announced the decision at a city council meeting, the room erupted in applause that lasted for nearly a minute.

A growing number of jurisdictions in the U.S. and Europe are also seeking to pass regulations that would limit data centre water consumption or force companies to be more transparent about how much they’re using. 

Canada’s federal government has set aside $700 million to fund data centre projects here. But aside from energy regulators, who review data centre applications to connect to power grids, there is little industry oversight.

“If we’re racing ahead and thinking only about the economic benefits, and not thinking about the downstream impacts to our environment, that’s negligent,” said White with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. “I think Canadians ought to be concerned. Our water is highly sought after, and will be as the world gets hotter.”

Elsewhere in the October 18, 2025 article, there’s information about water use in data centres,

How much water do chatbots drink?

Data centres are as old as computers and until recently were relatively uncontroversial — boring bits of IT infrastructure tucked away in non-descript office spaces.

But with the advent of cloud computing in the mid-2000s, they dramatically increased in size. 

These data centres — buildings ranging anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 square feet — required upwards of 100 megawatts of power and millions of litres of water annually for their cooling systems.

These demands have only been turbocharged by artificial intelligence, which requires data centres that house thousands of densely packed high-performance chips, operating around the clock — and generating heat.

A study done in 2023 estimated that generating between 10 and 50 medium-sized responses in ChatGPT — the AI-powered chatbot — consumed about 500 millilitres of water. That accounts for both the water required to produce the electricity needed to run the data centre (435 millilitres) and cool it down (the remaining 65 millilitres).

A separate study, conducted by the International Energy Agency, estimated that in 2023, data centres around the world consumed around 140 billion litres of water just for cooling. 

Much of that was potable water pulled from municipal utilities. (Because data centres generally use evaporative cooling systems, untreated water can damage the sensitive computer equipment inside.)

If you have time, the October 18, 2025 article is worth reading in its entirety.

This October 15, 2025 article by Amanda Follett Hosgood for The Tyee is focused on BC’s approach to AI water consumption, Note: Links have been removed,

B.C. recently saw its first AI data centres open in Prince George and Kamloops, and more are on the way. AI centres have been touted as a way to grow the economy while ensuring data sovereignty by storing information within our borders.

“AI is everywhere. It’s changing how we work. It’s changing how we learn. It’s changing how we do business,” said Port Moody-Burquitlam MLA Rick Glumac, who this summer became B.C.’s minister of state for artificial intelligence and new technologies. The position comes with a mandate to expand B.C.’s AI sector.

“There’s a lot of good work ahead,” Glumac, who comes from a tech background [emphases mine], told The Tyee.

But there’s a hitch. AI is just one of various potential boom industries vying for a piece of B.C.’s limited electricity supply.

AI data centres are energy intensive, requiring immense amounts of electricity for power and cooling. B.C.’s hydroelectric grid, which is fed almost entirely by renewable sources, offers a clean — but limited — energy source that’s attractive to businesses seeking to market themselves as environmentally conscious.

As the province looks to green the existing economy, transition to electric vehicles and expand industries like LNG using cleaner energy, AI is fast becoming one more customer seeking a piece of the power pie.

Glumac’s technical background? From the Rick Glumac Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

Glumac worked much of his career in the field of computer graphics as a software developer, visual effects artist, and computer graphics supervisor.[8]  He worked on the first computer-animated TV show ReBoot, and later worked for companies such as DreamWorks and Electronic Arts on well-known Hollywood films such as Shrek 2, Madagascar, and Over the Hedge.[8] Following this he developed apps for the iPhone.[7]

That’s a bit of leap for Mr. Glumac. Developing computer graphics is not the same thing as shepherding new and emerging technologies through government regulations and creating new regulations, deaing with public hopes/fears, anticipating energy needs, and dealing with any unintended consequences of the technologies themselves.

Follett Hosgood’s October 15, 2025 article provides an overview of the energy and data centre situation in BC,

B.C. is the first province in Canada to create a cabinet position dedicated to AI. But the province isn’t alone in signalling its interest in the industry.

The federal government created its own minister of artificial intelligence and digital innovation following the spring election, tapping former broadcaster Evan Solomon for the position.

B.C.’s parallel cabinet position “gives us the opportunity to really put a focus on this and to partner with the federal government,” Glumac told The Tyee.

In an email, B.C.’s Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions said the province groups data centres into three categories: conventional data centres, cryptocurrency mining and AI data centres.

It added that there are currently 12 “notable” conventional data centres in the province and three more requesting a power connection. If approved, the combined operations would draw nearly 40 megawatts of power — a small slice of the province’s 12,000-megawatt power supply.

AI data centres, however, can each draw more than 100 megawatts of power.

Two of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies recently announced plans to open AI data centres in B.C.

In May [2025], Bell Canada said it would open an AI “data centre supercluster” that is expected to use upwards of 500 megawatts, or about five per cent of the province’s current power supply.

Its first AI data centre, a seven-megawatt facility in Kamloops, opened in June. A second seven-megawatt facility is slated to open in Merritt by the end of next year.

The company is planning two additional 26-megawatt data centres in the near future, one in partnership with Thompson Rivers University and the other with the Upper Nicola Band. It says another two data centres with a combined capacity of more than 400 megawatts are in “advanced planning stages.”

Bell declined to provide detailed timelines, confirming in an email only that its Kamloops site is currently operational. “We remain on track and more sites will open in the coming months,” a spokesperson wrote.

The company also faces competition.

In April [2025], Telus announced two Canadian data centres, one in B.C., touting the operations as “fully owned, operated and secured on Canadian soil by a Canadian company” — a nod to national concerns over data sovereignty.

The Kamloops operation will be “powered by 99 per cent renewable energy,” Telus said, but how much power it will draw is unclear. The company didn’t respond to The Tyee’s questions about capacity or when it might come online.

Asked about how these data centres will fit into B.C.’s power grid, Glumac said that “BC Hydro is monitoring this very closely and planning accordingly.” The industry is evolving quickly, he added, and he wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the province would need to regulate expansion as it did with cryptocurrency mining.

“We want to make sure that clean energy supports not just data centres but supports the people in British Columbia and supports economic opportunities and job opportunities,” Glumac said. “It’s very important to monitor that and to balance all of that, and BC Hydro is doing that.”

BC Hydro directed The Tyee’s questions to B.C.’s Energy Ministry, which also provided an emailed statement.

“BC Hydro continues to look at how the growth in the industry could impact future demand, and will adjust its forecasts and planning accordingly,” a ministry spokesperson wrote, adding that the province is committed to “balancing energy demand with economic priorities.”

“We recognize that the AI industry is evolving rapidly, and we are closely monitoring how advancements in AI infrastructure may impact future energy needs.”

AI data centres don’t have to be a problem

It’s not all doom and gloom, from Follett Hosgood’s October 15, 2025 article,

Last year, the province [BC] imported a quarter of its electricity needs, most of it from the United States and Alberta, where it was generated using fossil fuels. In both 2024 and earlier this year, BC Hydro put out calls for power in an effort to make up the shortfall with clean, locally produced power.

Kate Harland is the research lead for clean growth at the Canadian Climate Institute. In an interview with The Tyee, she said that now is the time for governments to plan for the expected spike in energy demand from AI data centres.

“There is a lot of interest right now across Canada in having AI-enabled data centres,” Harland said. But she added that there’s likely to be a “tipping point” where AI’s benefits might not outweigh its demands on the power grid.

“If suddenly data centres are 20 per cent or 30 per cent of your total electricity demand, then you get into a new territory of questions,” she said.

While provinces such as B.C. and Quebec have traditionally taken a “first come, first served” approach to industrial power requests, some jurisdictions are implementing new rules to ensure limited power supply is allocated fairly and for the greatest overall benefit, Harland said.

Last year [2024], Quebec began requiring any projects requesting more than five megawatts of power to get ministerial approval. The approval considers factors such as economic impact, social impact and power requirements.

In 2023, Quebec’s government also signed an agreement with Microsoft as it launched four new data centres in the province. The tech giant agreed to reduce its energy consumption by 30 per cent during times of peak power use.

Harland said the pressure to meet power demand could be approached as an opportunity to build out renewables and increase supply. If data centres become more efficient over time, that would free up renewable power for domestic uses like electric vehicles and heat pumps, she said.

AI is also credited with identifying efficiencies, including in power use, which could help to offset its draw on the grid, Harland said. (Glumac also pointed to a recent study indicating that it could drive $200 billion in productivity improvements nationally.)

The technology’s practical uses tend to set it apart from cryptocurrency in the discussion about which industries get priority to grid access, Harland said.

The potential for data sovereignty is another argument in its favour.

But Harland emphasized that now is the time for governments to be proactive in forming AI policies.

If you have the time, do read Follett Hosgood’s October 15, 2025 article in its entirety.

If you have even more time, I provided some detail about the federal government and its new Minister of AI Digital Innovation in an October 17, 2025 posting (scroll down to the Canada and its Minister of AI and Digital Innovation subhead for information about Evan Solomon, the new minister. If you continue further in the posting.

What about local governments?

Municipalities may also have a role to play as data centres become more important in their real estate markets as this January 31, 2026 article by Kenneth Chan for the Daily Hive could be said to hint at, Note: Links have been removed,

Westbank’s major downtown Vancouver office tower project at steam plant site pivots to hotel, residential, and data centre uses

One of downtown Vancouver’s largest office development projects, first planned during the pre-pandemic office market boom, will not proceed as originally approved [emphasis mine], given the prevailing weak office market conditions.

Instead, the office tower project previously approved for 150 West Georgia St. (formerly addressed as 720 Beatty St.) — situated at the southwest corner of Beatty Street and West Georgia Street, immediately adjacent to BC Place Stadium’s northeast corner — is now in the very early stages of being repositioned as a mixed-use hotel and residential tower with a data centre [emphases mine], based on an all-new architectural design concept that also adds density and height.

A number of preliminary conceptual artistic renderings also show this drastic pivot.

All of this will be integrated into the district utility company Creative Energy’s new on-site replacement and expanded steam plant facilities, which have incurred major cost increases and experienced delays, including factors related to local developer Westbank’s liquidity challenges.

Pivot to a new tower with hotel, residential, and data centre uses on top of the Creative Energy facility

In October 2020, Vancouver City Council approved Westbank’s original rezoning application for redeveloping this site into an office tower and a standalone entertainment pavilion building, with below-grade parking and a new replacement steam plant.

Moving forward, essentially everything below grade — including the new vehicle parking and the Creative Energy facility — as well as the new entertainment pavilion building, will remain unchanged, while the office tower project above grade will not proceed.

Instead, the previous 264-ft.-tall, 17-storey, bulky, S-shaped office tower concept — designed by Bjarke Ingels Group and HCMA — with 583,000 sq. ft. of office space and 12,000 sq. ft. of additional ground-level retail/restaurant space has been completely scrapped and is now envisioned to become a 450-ft-tall, 48-storey, mixed-use hotel and residential tower with a data centre and ground-level retail/restaurant space, for a total of roughly 700,000 sq. ft. of building floor area.

The significantly increased height for added density is made possible by City Council’s July 2023-approved sweeping city-wide changes [emphasis mine] to the protected mountain view cones. Design revisions for taller heights are also set to occur for the nearby future Plaza of Nations and Concord Landing projects, made possible by these view cone changes.

… a Westbank spokesperson previously confirmed to Daily Hive Urbanized that they are looking into adding major data centre uses [emphasis mine] to the 1977-built, six-storey office building at 111 East 5th Ave. This distinctive brick building — part of Westbank’s Main Alley tech campus of new and renovated office buildings in the vicinity of the intersection of Main Street and East 5th Avenue in Mount Pleasant — is perhaps best known for being one of Hootsuite’s office locations since 2014. Westbank noted that at this time, Hootsuite is still the building’s primary tenant.

How will these and future data centres affect Vancouverites’ energy needs and access to water?.Hopefully, someone in Vancouver’s city government is doing some thinking on these matters.

Canada’s Chief Science Advisor: the first annual report

Dr. Mona Nemer, Canada’s Chief Science Advisor, and her office have issued their 2018 annual report. It is also the office’s first annual report. (Brief bit of history: There was a similar position, National Science Advisor (Canada) from 2004-2008. Dr. Arthur Carty, the advisor, was dumped and the position eliminated when a new government by what was previously the opposition party won the federal election.)

The report can be found in html format here which is where you’ll also find a link to download the full 40 pp. report as a PDF.

Being an inveterate ‘skip to the end’ kind of a reader, I took a boo at the Conclusion,

A chief science advisor plays an important role in building consensus and supporting positive change to our national institutions. Having laid the foundation for the function of the Chief Science Advisor in year one, I look forward to furthering the work that has been started and responding to new requests from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Science and members of Cabinet in my second year. I intend to continue working closely with agency heads, deputy ministers and the science community to better position Canada for global leadership in science and innovation.

I think the conclusion could have done with a little more imagination and/or personality, even by government report standards. While there is some interesting material in other parts of the report, on the whole, it is written in a pleasant, accessible style that raises questions.

Let’s start here with one of the sections that raises questions,

The Budget 2018 commitment of $2.8 billion to build multi-purpose, collaborative federal science and technology facilities presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to establish a strong foundation for Canada’s future federal science enterprise. Similarly momentous opportunities exist to create a Digital Research Infrastructure Strategy [emphasis mine] for extramural science and a strategic national approach to Major Research Facilities. This is an important step forward for the Government of Canada in bringing principles and standards for federal science in line with practices in the broader scientific community; as such, the Model Policy will not only serve for the benefit of federal science, but will also help facilitate collaboration with the broader scientific community.

Over the past year, my office has participated in the discussion around these potentially transformative initiatives. We offered perspectives on the evidence needed to guide decisions regarding the kind of science infrastructure that can support the increasingly collaborative and multidisciplinary nature of science.

Among other things, I took an active part in the deliberations of the Deputy Ministers Science Committee (DMSC) and in the production of recommendations to Cabinet with respect to federal science infrastructure renewal. I have also analyzed the evolving nature and needs for national science facilities that support the Canadian science community.

Success in building the science infrastructure of the next 50 years and propelling Canadian science and research to new heights will require that the multiple decisions around these foundational initiatives dovetail based on a deep and integrated understanding of Canada’s science system and commitment to maintaining a long-term vision.

Ultimately, these infrastructure investments will need to support a collective vision and strategy for science in Canada, including which functions federal science should perform, and which should be shared with or carried out separately by academic and private sector researchers, in Canada and abroad. These are some of the essential considerations that must guide questions of infrastructure and resource allocation.

Canadian government digital infrastructure is a pretty thorny issue and while the article I’m referencing is old, I strongly suspect they still have many of the same problems. I’m going to excerpt sections that are focused on IT, specifically, the data centres and data storage. Prepare yourself for a bit of a shock as you discover the government did not know how many data centres it had. From a December 28, 2016 article by James Bagnall for the Ottawa Citizen,

Information technology [IT} offered an even richer vein of potential savings. For half a century, computer networks and software applications had multiplied willy-nilly as individual departments and agencies looked after their own needs. [emphases mine] The result was a patchwork of incompatible, higher-cost systems. Standardizing common, basic technologies such as email, data storage and telecommunications seemed logical. [emphasis mine]

It had been tried before. But attempts to centralize the buying of high-tech gear and services had failed, largely because federal departments were allowed to opt out. Most did so. They did want to give up control of their IT networks to a central agency.

The PCO determined this time would be different. The prime minister had the authority to create a new federal department through a simple cabinet approval known as an order-in-council. Most departments, including a reluctant Canada Revenue Agency and Department of National Defence, would be forced to carve out a significant portion of their IT groups and budgets — about 40 per cent on average — and hand them over to Shared Services.

Crucially, the move would not be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. And so Shared Services [Shared Services Canada] was born on Aug. 3, 2011.

Speed was demanded of the agency from the start. Minutes of meetings involving senior Shared Services staff are studded with references to “tight schedules” and the “urgency” of getting projects done.

Part of that had to do with the sheer age of the government’s infrastructure. The hardware was in danger of breaking down and the underlying software for many applications was so old that suppliers such as Microsoft, PeopleSoft and Adobe had stopped supporting it. [emphases mine]

The faster Shared Services could install new networks, the less money it would be forced to throw at solving the problems caused by older technology.

… Because the formation of Shared Services had been shrouded in such secrecy, the hiring of experienced outsiders happened last minute. Grant Westcott would join Shared Services as COO in mid-September.

Sixty-three years old at the time, Wescott had served as assistant deputy minister of Public Services in the late 1990s, when he managed the federal government’s telecommunications networks. In that role, he oversaw the successful effort to prepare systems for the year 2000.

More relevant to his new position at Shared Services, Westcott had also worked for nearly a decade at CIBC. As executive vice-president, he had been instrumental in overhauling the bank’s IT infrastructure. Twenty-two of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s [CIBC] data centres were shrunk into just two, saving the bank more than $40 million annually in operating costs. Among other things, Westcott and his team consolidated 15 global communications networks into a single voice and data system. More savings resulted.

It wasn’t without glitches. CIBC was forced on several occasions to apologize to customers for a breakdown in certain banking services.

Nevertheless, Westcott’s experience suggested this was not rocket science, at least not in the private sector. [emphasis mine] Streamlining and modernizing IT networks could be done under the right conditions. …


While Shared Services is paying Bell only for the mailboxes it has already moved [there was an email project, which has since been resolved], the agency is still responsible for keeping the lights on at the government’s legacy data centres [emphasis mine]— where most of the electronic mailboxes, and much of the government’s software applications, for that matter, are currently stored.

These jumbles of computers, servers, wires and cooling systems are weighed down by far too much history — and it took Shared Services a long time to get its arms around it.

“We were not created with a transformation plan already in place because to do that, we needed to know what we had,” Forand [Liseanne Forand, then president of Shared Services Canada] explained to members of Parliament. “So we spent a year counting things.” [emphasis mine]

Shared Services didn’t have to start from scratch. Prior to the agency’s 2011 launch, the PCO’s administrative review tried to estimate the number of data centres in government by interviewing the IT czars for each of the departments. Symptomatic of the far-flung nature of the government’s IT networks — and how loosely these were managed — the PCO [Privy Council Office] didn’t even come close.

“When I was at Privy Council, we thought there might be about 200 data centres,” Benoit Long, senior assistant deputy minister of Shared Services told the House of Commons committee last May [2016], “After a year, we had counted 495 and I am still discovering others today.” [emphasis mine]

Most of these data centres were small — less than 1,000 square feet — often set up by government scientists who didn’t bother telling their superiors. Just 22 were larger than 5,000 square feet — and most of these were in the National Capital Region. These were where the bulk of the government’s data and software applications were stored.

In 2012, Grant Westcott organized a six-week tour of these data centres to see for himself what Shared Services was dealing with. According to an agency employee familiar with the tour’s findings, Westcott came away profoundly shocked.

Nearly all the large data centres were decrepit [emphasis mine], undercapitalized and inefficient users of energy. Yet just one was in the process of being replaced. This was a Heron Road facility with a leaking roof, considered key because it housed Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] data.

Bell Canada had been awarded a contract to build and operate a new data centre in Buckingham. The CRA data would be transferred there in the fall of 2013. A separate part of that facility is also meant to host the government’s email system.

The remaining data centres offered Westcott a depressing snapshot. [emphasis mine]

Most of the gear was housed in office towers, rather than facilities tailormade for heavy-duty electronics. With each new generation of computer or servers came requirements for more power and more robust cooling systems. The entire system was approaching a nervous breakdown.[emphasis mine]

Not only were the data centres inherited by Shared Services running out of space, the arrangements for emergency power bordered on makeshift. One Defence Department data centre, for instance, relied [on] a backup generator powered by a relatively ancient jet engine. [emphases mine] While unconventional, there was nothing unique about pressing military hardware into this type of service. The risk had to do with with training — the older the jet engine, the fewer employees there were who knew how to fix it. [emphasis mine]

The system for backing up data wasn’t much better. At Statistics Canada — where Westcott’s group was actually required to swear an oath to keep the data confidential before entering the storage rooms — the backup procedure called for storing copies of the data in a separate but nearby facility.While that’s OK for most disasters, the relative proximity still meant Statcan’s repository of historical data was vulnerable to a bombing or major earthquake.

Two and a quarter years later, I imagine they’ve finished counting their data centres but how much progress they might have made on replacing and upgrading the hardware and the facilities is not known to me but it’s hard to believe that all of the fixes have been made, especially after reading the Chief Science Advisor’s 2018 annual report (the relevant bits are coming up shortly.

If a more comprehensive view of the current government digital infrastructure interests you, I highly recommend Bagnall’s article. It’s heavy going for someone who’s not part of the Ottawa scene but it’s worth the effort as it gives you some insight into the federal government’s workings, which seem remarkably similar regardless as to which party is in power. Plus, it’s really well written.

Getting back to the report, I realize it’s not within the Chief Science Advisor’s scope to discuss the entirety of the government’s digital infrastructure but ***Corrected March 22, 2019 : Ooops! As originally written this section was incorrect. Here’s the corrected version; you can find the original version at the end of this post: “… 40 percent of facilities are more than 50 years old …” doesn’t really convey the depth and breadth of the problem. Presumably, these facilities also include digital infrastructure. At any rate, 40 percent of what? Just how many of these facilities are over 50 year old?*** By the way, the situation as the Chief Science Advisor’s Office describes it, gets a little worse, keep reading,

Over the past two years, the Treasury Board Secretariat has worked with the federal science community to develop an inventory of federal science infrastructure.

The project was successful in creating a comprehensive list of federal science facilities and documenting their state of repair. It reveals that some 40 percent of facilities are more than 50 years old and another 40 percent are more than 25 years old. The problem is most acute in the National Capital Region.

A similar inventory of research equipment is now underway. This will allow for effective coordination of research activities across organizations and with external collaborators. The Canada Foundation for Innovation, which provides federal funding toward the costs of academic research infrastructure, has created a platform upon which this work will build.

***Also corrected on March 20, 2019: Bravo to the Treasury Board for creating an inventory of the aging federal science infrastructure, which hopefully includes the digital.*** Following on Bagnall’s outline of the problems, it had to be discouraging work, necessary but discouraging. ***Also corrected on March 20, 2019: Did they take advantage of the Shared Services Canada data centrre counting exercise? Or did they redo the work?*** In any event, both the Treasury Board and the Chief Science Advisor have even more ahead of them.

Couldn’t there have been a link to the inventory? Is it secret information? It would have been nice if Canada’s Chief Science Advisor’s website had offered additional information or a link to supplement the 2018 annual report.

Admittedly there probably aren’t that many people who’d like more information about infrastructure and federal science offices but surely they could somehow give us a little more detail. For example, I understand there’s an AI (artificial intelligence) initiative within the government and given some of the issues, such as the Phoenix payroll system debacle and the digital infrastructure consisting of ‘chewing gum and baling wire’, my confidence is shaken. Have they learned any lessons? The report doesn’t offer any assurance they are taking these ‘lessons’ into account as they forge onwards.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

I’ve always liked that line about lies and I’ll get to its applicability with regard to the Chief Science Advisor’s 2018 report but first, from the Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics Wikipedia entry (Note: Links have been removed),


Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent’s point.

The phrase was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli’s works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]

Here’s a portion of the 2018 report, which is “using the persuasive power of numbers”, in this case, to offer a suggestion about why people mistrust science,

A recent national public survey found that eight in ten respondents wanted to know more about science and how it affects our world, and roughly the same percentage of people are comfortable knowing that scientific answers may not be definitive. 1 [emphases mine] While this would seem to be a positive result, it may also suggest why some people mistrust science, [emphasis mine] believing that results are fluid and can support several different positions. Again, this reveals the importance of effectively communicating science, not only to counter misinformation, but to inspire critical thinking and an appreciation for curiosity and discovery.

I was happy to see the footnote but surprised that the writer(s) simply trotted out a statistic without any hedging about the reliability of the data. Just because someone says that eight out of ten respondents feel a certain way doesn’t give me confidence in the statistic and I explain why in the next section.

They even added that ‘people are aware that scientific answers are not necessarily definitive’. So why not be transparent about the fallibility of statistics in your own report? If that’s not possible in the body of the report, then maybe put the more detailed, nuanced analysis in an appendix.Finally, how did they derive the notion from the data suggesting that people are aware that science is a process of refining knowledge and adjusting it as needed might lead to distrust of science? It’s possible of course but how do you make that leap based on the data you’re referencing? As for that footnote, where was the link to the report? Curious, I took a look at the report.

Ontario Science Centre and its statistics

For the curious, you can find the Ontario Science Centre. Canadian Science Attitudes Research (July 6, 2018) here where you’ll see the methodology is a little light on detail. (The company doing this work, Leger, is a marketing research and analysitcs company.) Here’s the methodology, such as it is,


QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

An online survey of 1501 Canadians was completed between June 18 and 26, 2018, using Leger’s online panel.The margin of error for this study was +/-2.5%, 19 times out of 20.

COMPARISON DATA

Where applicable, this year’s results have been compared back to a similar study done in 2017 (OSC Canadian Science Attitudes Research, August 2017). The use of arrows ( ) indicate significant changes between the two datasets.

ABOUT LEGER’S ONLINE PANEL

Leger’s online panel has approximately 450,000 members nationally and has a retention rate of 90%.

QUALITY CONTROL

Stringent quality assurance measures allow Leger to achieve the high-quality standards set by the company. As a result, its methods of data collection and storage outperform the norms set by WAPOR (The World Association for Public Opinion Research). These measures are applied at every stage of the project: from data collection to processing, through to analysis.We aim to answer our clients’ needs with honesty, total confidentiality, and integrity.

I didn’t find any more substantive description of the research methodology but there is a demographic breakdown at the end of the report and because they’ve given you the number of the number of people paneled (1501) at the beginning of the report, you can figure out just how many people fit into the various categories.

Now, the questions: What is a Leger online panel? How can they confirm that the people who took the survey are Canadian? How did they put together this Leger panel, e.g., do people self-seletct? Why did they establish a category for people aged 65+? (Actually, in one section of the report, they make reference to 55+.) Read on for why that last one might be a good question.

I haven’t seen any surveys or polls originating in Canada that seem to recognize that a 65 year old is not an 80 year old. After all, they don’t lump in 20 year olds with 40 year olds because these people are at different stages in their lifespans, often with substantive differences in their outlook.. Maybe there are no differences between 65 year olds and 80 year olds but we’ll never know because no one ever asks. When you add in Canada’s aging population, the tendency to lump all ‘old’ people together seems even more thoughtless.

These are just a few questions that spring to mind and most likely, the pollsters have a more substantive methodology. There may have been a perfectly good reason for not including more detail in the version of the report I’ve linked to. For example, a lot of people will stop reading a report that’s ‘bogged down’ in too much detail. Fair enough but why not give a link to a more substantive methodology or put it in an appendix?

One more thing, I couldn’t find any data in the Ontario Science Centre report that would support the Chief Science Advisor Office’s speculation about why people might not trust science. They did hedge, as they should, “… seem to be a positive result, it may also suggest why some people mistrust science …” but the hedging follows directly after the ” … eight in ten respondents …”. which structurally suggests that there is data supporting the speculation. If there is, it’s not in the pollster’s report.

Empire building?

I just wish the office of the Chief Science Advisor had created the foundation to support this,

Establishing a National Science Advisory System

Science and scientific information permeate the work of the federal government, creating a continuous need for decision-makers to negotiate uncertainty in interpreting often variable and generally incomplete scientific evidence for policy making. With science and technology increasingly a part of daily life, the need for science advice will only intensify.

As such, my office has been asked to assess and recommend ways to improve the existing science advisory function [emphasis mine] within the federal government. To that end, we examined the science advisory systems in other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the European Union. [emphasis mine]

A key feature of all the systems was a network of department-level science advisors. These are subject matter experts who work closely with senior departmental officials and support the mandate of the chief science advisor. They stand apart from day-to-day operations and provide a neutral sounding board for senior officials and decision-makers evaluating various streams of information. They also facilitate the incorporation of evidence in decision-making processes and act as a link between the department and external stakeholders.

I am pleased to report that our efforts to foster a Canadian science advisory network are already bearing fruit. Four organizations [emphasis mine] have so far moved to create a departmental science advisor position, and the first incumbents at the Canadian Space Agency and the National Research Council [emphasis mine] are now in place. I have every confidence that the network of departmental science advisors will play an important role in enhancing science advice and science activities planning, especially on cross-cutting issues.

Who asked the office to assess and recommend ways to improve the existing science advisory function? By the way, the European Union axed the position of Chief Science Adviser, after Anne Glover, the first such adviser in their history, completed the term of her appointment in 2014 (see James Wilsdon’s November 13, 2014 article for the Guardian). Perhaps they meant countries in the European Union?

Which four organizations have created departmental science advisor positions? Presumably the Canadian Space Agency and the National Research Council were two of the organizations?

If you’re looking at another country’s science advisory systems do you have some publicly available information, perhaps a report and analysis? Is there a set of best practices? And, how do these practices fit into the Canadian context?

More generally, how much is this going to cost? Are these departmental advisors expected to report to the Canadian federal government’s Chief Science Advisor, as well as, their own ministry deputy minister or higher? Will the Office of the Chief Science Advisor need more staff?

I could be persuaded that increasing the number of advisors and increasing costs to support these efforts are good ideas but it would be nice to see the Office of Chief Science Advisor put some effort into persuasion rather than assuming that someone outside the tight nexus of federal government institutions based in Ottawa is willing to accept statements. that aren’t detailed and/or supported by data.

Final thoughts

I’m torn. I’m supportive of the position of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada and happy to see a report. It looks like there’s some exciting work being done.

I also hold the Chief Advisor and the Office to a high standard. It’s understandable that they may have decided to jettison detail in favour of making the 2018 annual report more readable but what I don’t understand is the failure to provide a more substantive report or information that supports and details the work. There’s a lack of transparency and, also, clarity. What do they mean by the word ‘science’. At a guess, they’re not including the social sciences.

On the whole, the report looks a little sloppy and that’s the last thing I expect from the Chief Science Advisor.

*** This is the original and not accurate version: “… 40 percent of facilities are more than 50 years old …” doesn’t really convey the depth and breadth of the problem. Let’s start with any easy question: 40 percent of what? Just how many of these computers are over 50 year old? By the way, the situation as the Chief Science Advisor’s Office describes it, gets a little worse, keep reading, AND THIS: Bravo to the Treasury Board for tracking down those data centres and more. AND THIS: Also, was this part of the Shared Services Canada counting exercise?