Geoffrey Blanc is the General Manager of Terrebonne, Quebec-based Cyberimpact, a Canadian email marketing platform used by businesses, public organizations, and nonprofits across the country. He has more than 10 years of experience leading teams, running software-as-a-service operations, and working on email deliverability and compliance.

Canada is investing heavily in scientific research and digital innovation. The federal government is funding AI infrastructure, supporting national compute capacity, and pushing to grow local capability in core technologies. Yet the data behind much of this work still sits under foreign control.

This gap is widening. Canada is building cutting-edge research capacity, but the digital foundation that supports it often belongs to companies governed by another country’s laws. That contradiction limits the impact of our investments.

I see this gap between ambition and infrastructure in my work at Cyberimpact, and it carries a cost. Universities, public agencies and labs rely on tools that store sensitive information under U.S. jurisdiction. That puts Canadian research, public trust and long-term competitiveness at risk.

The reality is simple: Canada cannot claim digital leadership if the information that powers its innovation economy is governed somewhere else.

Many organizations believe they are safe because their vendor stores data on servers located in Canada. Location is only part of the picture. Jurisdiction also follows ownership.

Data residency refers to where information physically sits. Data sovereignty determines which legal system governs it. Many organizations assume residency gives them protection, but sovereignty is what actually defines risk.

U.S. laws like the Patriot Act and the CLOUD Act allow American authorities to access data held by U.S. companies, even if the data never leaves Canadian soil.

A Canadian hospital using an American-owned cloud tool does not control who can request access. A university using a U.S. marketing or analytics service cannot guarantee the privacy protections it promises to students or donors.

Most teams are not aware of this exposure. They rely on tools they consider low risk, such as email marketing platforms or customer relationship management systems. These platforms often store names, emails, preferences, and engagement signals. For researchers and public sector organizations, those details can reveal patterns about program use, regional activity or citizen behaviour. 

For example, a public university recently conducted a privacy review after realizing its analytics provider was American-owned. Even though the data stayed in Canada, the legal control did not. The institution had to pause part of a project simply to understand its exposure.

This creates silent vulnerability. It also weakens the ability to enforce Canadian privacy laws like Quebec Law 25, Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, or the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act in a consistent way.

Why data residency is infrastructure

Canada treats physical infrastructure as strategic. We invest in clean energy, telecom networks, roads and research facilities because they support economic growth. Data infrastructure needs the same mindset.

Research institutions manage sensitive datasets, often tied to government grants. Municipalities run digital services that handle public information. Provincial agencies coordinate health communications. These organizations rely on digital tools every day, yet there is no national standard for where their data should live or who should govern it.

Data residency is not an IT preference. It is a structural requirement for trust. When researchers run studies, they need predictable rules. When public institutions send communications, they need to guarantee privacy. When Canada invests in AI development, it must ensure the training data and operational systems meet national expectations.

Today, this foundation is inconsistent. Some organizations choose Canadian vendors. Others stay with U.S. defaults. Many do not know the difference. That uncertainty puts Canada at a disadvantage when competing for talent, investment and global partnerships.

Building sovereign digital infrastructure would also strengthen the domestic economy. It would support high-value technical jobs, attract research partnerships, and give Canadian companies a clearer path to scale in regulated and public sector markets.

Data sovereignty is often framed as a technical concern. It is not. It affects daily operations.

I see this firsthand when organizations switch to Canadian-built tools because their teams can no longer justify the risk of foreign jurisdiction. Government departments, schools and regulated sectors want clear compliance. They want to communicate with citizens without exposing personal information to another country’s legal system.

They also want accountability. When teams know exactly where data is stored, who manages it, and which laws apply, decision-making becomes simpler. Issues can be addressed faster. Compliance reviews are cleaner. Privacy-by-design becomes normal instead of exceptional.

This is the same shift we are seeing in AI. The federal government’s partnership with Cohere to build Canadian AI infrastructure shows a clear strategic intent. Canada wants domestic capability. It wants independence. It wants to set rules that reflect Canadian values. That same logic applies to every digital service that handles personal information.

The policy vacuum Canada needs to close

Canada has no unified framework that links its innovation goals with clear rules for data sovereignty. Privacy laws define rights. Procurement rules touch on security. But there is still no national standard for where high-sensitivity or publicly funded data must be stored. 

The new Buy Canadian policy signals progress because it directs public spending toward domestic providers, yet it only works if the same principle applies to digital systems, cloud tools and communication platforms that hold sensitive or publicly funded information.

Without that standard, Canadian innovators compete with tools that are easier to adopt but riskier to operate. Public institutions use systems that undermine long-term sovereignty goals. Even teams with strong privacy mandates struggle to make consistent choices.

Several practical steps would move the country forward:

• Create clear procurement rules requiring Canadian data residency for public sector and publicly funded research projects.
• Define sovereignty tiers that classify data types and assign residency requirements.
• Incentivize Canadian-hosted research environments so universities can run studies without navigating foreign jurisdiction.
• Support commercialization programs that help local digital infrastructure providers scale.
• Require transparency from foreign-owned vendors about jurisdictional exposure so organizations can make informed decisions.

These steps do not restrict innovation. They strengthen it. They give teams clarity. They give Canadian companies a predictable environment to build in. They protect citizens. They also align with global trends. Europe is moving toward sovereign cloud standards. Australia and New Zealand are tightening residency requirements. Canada should lead in the same direction.

Public trust is a competitive advantage. One Cisco study found that 81 percent of global consumers see a company’s data practices as a reflection of how it views them. When institutions rely on tools that undermine that trust, the impact is immediate.

People unsubscribe. Engagement drops. Data-sharing becomes harder. Programs lose reach. In research environments, participation declines. In public agencies, communication becomes less effective.

For organizations working toward public outcomes, trust is not abstract. It is operational. Losing it slows everything.

Leaders can start by mapping where their data actually resides, evaluating jurisdictional exposure and prioritizing Canadian-governed vendors for sensitive or publicly funded work. Small changes in procurement and tool selection can create immediate gains in sovereignty.

Canada has the talent and the ecosystem to build modern, privacy-first digital infrastructure. Local companies already support governments, universities and major institutions. The country is moving quickly on AI. It cares deeply about rights, equity and public stewardship.

Data sovereignty is not about isolation. It is about independence, consistency and trust. If Canada wants to lead in the knowledge economy, it needs to protect the information that fuels it.

What is missing is a unified expectation. We need the same level of clarity for data that we give to other forms of infrastructure. Without it, Canada risks building world-class innovation on top of foundations it does not control.

R$