Summary#
Bill 146, the Moratorium on Artificial Intelligence Data Centres Act, 2026, would create a new law and amend the Planning Act and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025. Its stated goal is to pause construction and capacity increases while an advisory committee develops suggested legal changes on issues such as energy, water, farmland, community impacts and digital sovereignty.
- It would prohibit anyone from building an artificial intelligence data centre or increasing one’s computational capacity until the committee lifts the moratorium.
- A committee appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council would prepare and publish suggested legislative and regulatory amendments, monitor whether the stated objectives are met, and lift the moratorium if it is satisfied that changes to the law have met them.
- The Agriculture Minister could order a person to dispose of farmland acquired to build or expand a centre in breach of the moratorium, or prohibit a purchase or acquisition in specified circumstances.
- The Energy and Mines Minister and the Environment Minister would have to publish annual reports on centres’ energy and water use, emissions, waste, funding and employment, among other matters.
- The bill would set fines of up to $500,000 for an individual and $1 million for a corporation for specified offences. Directors and officers who authorize, permit or concur in a corporation’s offence could also be guilty of an offence.
- The two amendments would prevent certain planning orders and special economic zone regulations from allowing an exception to the moratorium. The parent Acts were not supplied, so their current wording and the full effect of these amendments cannot be verified here.
What it means for you#
- Government: The committee and ministers would have new duties. The committee’s list of objectives is a brief for suggested changes; it does not itself put those objectives into force as requirements for data centres.
- Data-centre builders and operators: Building a centre or increasing its computational capacity would be prohibited until the moratorium is lifted. The bill does not prohibit continued operation of an existing centre.
- Farmland owners and buyers: The Agriculture Minister could require disposal of farmland acquired for a prohibited build or expansion, or prohibit a purchase or acquisition if the Minister is satisfied it is intended for that purpose. This is not a general power to take farmland.
- Residents, businesses and communities: The bill does not itself guarantee that centres will not raise utility bills, require community approval, provide community benefits, or meet limits on water, electricity, noise or emissions. Those are objectives for suggested future changes.
- Taxpayers: The bill does not itself prohibit government subsidies for data centres. A ban on subsidies is one objective for the committee’s suggested amendments.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The committee and annual reporting duties would require government work, but the bill gives no cost estimate, staffing level or separate funding.
- The bill sets maximum fines, but gives no estimate of how many offences or fines there might be.
- The no-subsidies objective is not an operative ban in this bill.
What is unclear#
- The bill gives no deadline for the committee’s recommendations or for lifting the moratorium.
- It does not set out how the committee will decide whether the objectives have been met, beyond requiring it to assess the state of the law.
- “Computational capacity” is not defined. The definition of farmland may be further changed by regulation.
- The bill does not establish detailed procedures for farmland orders, such as notice, review or appeal steps.
- It does not say how the new duties would interact with other rules or programs affecting data centres.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to pause new construction and expansions while lawmakers consider possible safeguards for electricity, water, emissions, farmland and communities.
- A moratorium would prevent new builds or capacity increases during that period, rather than relying only on future reporting.
- Annual public reports could give people information about centres’ resource use, environmental effects, funding and employment.
Case against#
- The prohibition has no stated end date. The committee controls when it is lifted, and the bill sets no timetable for its work.
- The bill pauses construction but leaves the listed safeguards as proposed objectives; it does not itself enact most of them as rules for centres.
- The committee’s test for lifting the moratorium is broad, and the bill does not specify a detailed decision process or independent review.