Canada’s AI compute fund is closed. Build the cost plan anyway.

Start with the closed door

As checked September 23, 2026, ISED’s AI Compute Access Fund page says the fund is closed to applications. The last call ended on July 31, 2025. That status comes before any calculation: a published funding percentage is not money a new applicant can claim today. Check the linked program page again before preparing a submission or making a purchase that depends on support.

There is still a useful planning exercise here. A team shopping for compute needs three separate numbers: the supplier’s full bill, the portion a program might accept, and the cash the business must provide before reimbursement. Combining them into one “discounted cloud cost” hides the most consequential uncertainty. Below, a deliberately fictional budget keeps those three numbers apart. It is not an application or an estimate of anyone’s award.

The bill is not the eligible-cost base

The program guide lists compute, storage and certain compute-specific expenses as potentially eligible. It excludes support plans, data-transfer fees, legal fees and sales taxes. Reimbursement follows payment of accepted expenses; signing and timing conditions also matter. In the table, assume the first two lines have been accepted under an agreement. That assumption is part of the exercise, not a finding about a real supplier.

Our sample team needs a year of Canadian-hosted capacity. Its quote includes four lines, before tax. The worksheet flags each line separately rather than treating a cloud provider’s entire invoice as eligible. A mixed invoice needs an allocation that the team can explain and reproduce. The guide sets a $100,000 to $5 million eligible-cost range for proposals and warns that costs before a signed agreement are normally at the applicant's risk, with a stated case-by-case exception. Our fictional $144,000 base falls inside that numeric range; it establishes neither applicant nor project eligibility.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column.

Calculate two ceilings, then keep the uncertainty

The overview describes support of up to two-thirds for eligible Canadian services. The program guide also uses 67% in an explanatory note. Those are close, but they are not the same number. On our $144,000 assumed base, two-thirds is $96,000; 67% is $96,480. The $480 difference is a reason to confirm the agreement’s rate and calculation, not to choose the larger figure for a cash forecast. For foreign compute, the guide describes a lower rate and makes expenditures after March 31, 2027 ineligible for an offset; those dates would matter to a mixed-provider plan, although this example assumes domestic service throughout.

Using the more conservative two-thirds illustration, the supplier bill less potential support is $60,000: $156,000 minus $96,000. That is $48,000 of eligible costs left with the business plus $12,000 of excluded costs. It is not $52,000, which is what subtracting two-thirds from the entire supplier bill would suggest. That shortcut understates the residual by $8,000.

Even the $60,000 residual assumes an award, accepted costs and payment in full. It excludes taxes, financing costs and possible repayment obligations. The guide allows non-repayable, conditionally repayable and repayable contributions. A repayable award may lower the initial funding gap while leaving a later repayment, so $60,000 is not a guaranteed final cost. Put the award type beside the number wherever it travels.

Eligible base = 120000 + 24000 = 144000
Excluded lines = 9000 + 3000 = 12000
Supplier bill = 144000 + 12000 = 156000
Illustrative ceiling = 144000 × 2 / 3 = 96000
Residual before tax = 156000 − 96000 = 60000
No-award scenario = 156000
67% comparison = 144000 × 0.67 = 96480

Cash due and final cost belong on different lines

Imagine the fictional supplier invoices the full $156,000 before a claim is paid. The team needs a way to pay that bill even if it expects support later. Calling the net figure the “cash needed” would conceal a $96,000 bridge in this simplified example. A monthly contract would produce a different schedule; a delayed claim would extend the gap. Neither can be inferred from the headline support rate.

Build a dated cash ledger with invoice due date, gross amount, proof of payment, claim submission and actual reimbursement. Leave a forecast reimbursement clearly marked as forecast. Add a no-award column before deciding whether the project is affordable. Do not sign an unaffordable commitment on the assumption a future intake will reopen or that an existing application will succeed.

Prepare an evidence folder, not a promise of approval

The application guide asks applicants to explain their project and commercialization case. For this exercise, the useful preparation is a folder that connects each budget line to a workload and an observable result. “Train an AI model” is too vague to explain why a particular capacity reservation is needed.

For the $120,000 compute line, our fictional team would record the experiment schedule, expected hours, quoted unit rate, cancellation terms and the person allowed to increase the reservation. For storage, it would record what is retained, for how long and why. A provider’s Canadian sales address alone does not settle where a workload or its data will run; request supporting documentation and check it against the actual program conditions.

End the worksheet with three unresolved questions: Which costs would the agreement accept? What rate and repayment terms would apply? Can the company pay the supplier without relying on an unconfirmed receipt? Those questions survive changes to program dates and make the cost plan useful even if no further call opens.

five checks for Canadian AI sovereigntyExamine control, continuity and exit alongside the quoted compute price.