A group of seven families in Saskatchewan is grappling with uncertainty and frustration as they voice concerns regarding Bell’s planned artificial intelligence data centre in their vicinity. Despite months of inquiries, these landowners have received scant information, leaving them anxious about the potential impact on their quality of life and property values.
Frustration with Local Governance
Living adjacent to the proposed site in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Sherwood, the concerned families have expressed their dissatisfaction in a letter to local council members. They lament, “At every stage of this process, our concerns have been deferred, reduced, or ignored.” While not outright opposing the project, they are keenly aware of how it could alter their everyday lives.
Doug McKell, whose family has resided in the area for nearly 150 years, describes the process of obtaining information from the RM as a Sisyphean task. “We have the governance system in place so that these kinds of concerns should be able to be handled through their regular process,” he remarked. “For them to ignore that and not deal with us in their normal fashion is incredibly frustrating for everyone in the area.”
Repeated Requests for Clarity
Between January and March 2026, the families made four formal requests to the RM of Sherwood’s Administration and Council. Their inquiries sought binding commitments on various issues, including noise control, lighting, drainage, storm-water management, groundwater protection, and roadway upgrades.
Unfortunately, only their first request, submitted on January 29, was acknowledged publicly, while subsequent submissions went unrecorded on the RM’s website. After receiving no response to their initial three requests, the group escalated their concerns by lodging a formal complaint with the Ombudsman on February 25.
In a surprising turn of events, just days after the council discussed the Ombudsman complaint during a meeting on March 16, four out of seven council members—including the Reeve and Deputy-Reeve—resigned without explanation.
New Leadership and a Fresh Dialogue
The abrupt resignations prompted the province’s Ministry of Government Relations to intervene, appointing former Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) president Ray Orb as the new Reeve. Alongside him, Mitch Huber, Donna Strudwick, and Judy Harwood filled the other vacant council positions, bringing a new dynamic to the local governance.
On March 25, the group submitted another letter to the RM, urging the council to include specific binding conditions in the development agreement. Their plea demanded a response within a week. By April 2, the RM posted an executive summary of the proposed development agreement online, which appeared to address several of the landowners’ concerns.
For instance, it assured that sound levels would match existing ambient conditions and that roadway upgrades would be financed by the developer. However, for McKell and his fellow residents, assurances are not enough. They insist on enforceable conditions that will hold the developer accountable.
A Hopeful Meeting with New Council
On April 14, the concerned families met with the newly appointed council to discuss their worries and advocate for binding conditions. Reports from the meeting suggest a sense of optimism emerged among the residents, particularly after hearing from Dan Rink, the President of Bell AI Fabric.
Doug McKell noted, “I think moving forward, we’ll be able to work with this. I think they heard our issues and concerns, so that was positive.” However, no commitments were made during the meeting, leaving the residents to wonder if their calls for binding conditions would be integrated into the development agreement, scheduled for review on April 20.
Why it Matters
The voices of these Saskatchewan landowners highlight a crucial intersection of local governance, environmental stewardship, and technological advancement. As communities grapple with rapid developments, the importance of transparency and accountability becomes paramount. This situation serves as a reminder that the impact of such projects can ripple through local communities, affecting livelihoods and the natural environment. It underscores the need for robust dialogue and enforceable agreements that protect residents’ rights while accommodating progress.
