|
Q-1353
|
Monday, June 15, 2026 |
With regard to the Ministerial Order authorities and related government direction powers contained in Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access: (a) what policy, legal, operational, investigative, intelligence, or national security deficiencies, gaps, challenges, or limitations did the government identify that led to the development of the Ministerial Order regime contained in the bill; (b) what analyses, assessments, risk assessments, or legal analyses were prepared regarding the need for such authorities, and what were their principal findings and conclusions; (c) what alternative approaches were considered during policy development, including judicially authorized case-by-case orders, voluntary compliance arrangements, regulatory-only approaches, industry-led standards, existing lawful access authorities, or other mechanisms, and, for each, why was it determined to be insufficient or rejected; (d) what assessments were conducted regarding the potential impact of Ministerial Orders on the operational independence, business operations, costs, technical architecture, innovation, competitiveness, or decision-making autonomy of electronic service providers, and what were the findings; (e) what limits, thresholds, criteria, conditions, safeguards, or restrictions on the issuance of Ministerial Orders were considered during policy development, including any that were ultimately rejected, and why; (f) what analysis was conducted regarding the potential for mission creep, expansion of scope, unintended uses, or future application of Ministerial Orders beyond their original intended purpose, and what conclusions were reached; (g) what comparative analysis was conducted of similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and member states of the European Union, including, for each jurisdiction examined, the authorities reviewed and any lessons, findings, recommendations, or best practices identified; (h) what consultations, engagement activities, or stakeholder meetings were undertaken in the development of the Ministerial Order provisions, including, for each, the date, participants, organizations represented, and subject matter discussed; (i) what concerns, objections, recommendations, or proposed amendments relating to Ministerial Orders were raised during consultations and engagement activities and, for each concern, objection, recommendation, or proposed amendment, how did the government respond and what action, if any, was taken; (j) what changes were made to the proposed Ministerial Order regime as a result of stakeholder consultations, internal analysis, legal review, or policy development processes; and (k) what metrics, indicators, reporting requirements, review mechanisms, or accountability measures does the government intend to use to assess whether the Ministerial Order authorities are being exercised as intended and remain necessary, proportionate, and effective over time? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1352
|
Monday, June 15, 2026 |
With regard to the government's 2026 national artificial intelligence strategy and any related initiatives announced or implemented since January 1, 2025: (a) what analyses, forecasts and modelling exercises has the government completed regarding the potential impact of artificial intelligence adoption on employment in Canada; (b) what occupations, sectors or industries have been identified as being at high, medium, or low risk of displacement, job loss, task replacement or workforce reduction due to artificial intelligence technologies; (c) what estimates has the government made regarding the number of jobs that may be affected, displaced, transformed or eliminated as a result of artificial intelligence adoption, broken down by sector and year; (d) what plans, targets, programs or funding commitments exist to support workers whose employment may be displaced or materially altered by artificial intelligence technologies; (e) what consultations have been undertaken with labour organizations, employer groups, industry associations, academics or other stakeholders regarding the labour-market impacts of artificial intelligence, including, for each consultation, the date, participants and key findings; (f) what measures, if any, are being considered to monitor, track and publicly report on workforce displacement resulting from artificial intelligence adoption; (g) what performance indicators, benchmarks or accountability mechanisms have been established to evaluate whether artificial intelligence adoption is resulting in net job creation, net job loss, wage suppression or other labour-market impacts; and (h) what department or agency has primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the employment impacts of artificial intelligence in Canada? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1351
|
Monday, June 15, 2026 |
With regard to Budget 2025’s expansion of federal support for digital and artificial intelligence infrastructure, including the broadened mandate and increased capitalization of the Canada Infrastructure Bank for artificial intelligence and related digital investments: (a) what analysis has been conducted by the government regarding this policy shift, including (i) the rationale for redefining “infrastructure” in Budget 2025 to include artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and digital systems within the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s mandate, (ii) the justification for advancing this shift through budgetary and administrative measures rather than explicit legislative amendment and parliamentary debate, (iii) the basis on which artificial intelligence systems, cloud platforms, and digital assets are being treated as “infrastructure” for federal financing purposes, (iv) the expected long-term fiscal exposure, contingent liabilities, and risk transfer to taxpayers arising from this expansion; (b) what governance, oversight, and accountability frameworks currently apply to artificial intelligence-related investments made or facilitated through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and associated federal digital governance bodies, and, if no dedicated framework exists, why such investments are proceeding without a tailored governance regime comparable to other high-risk or system-critical domains; (c) what measures are in place to ensure transparency, parliamentary oversight, and auditability of contracts, systems, data infrastructure, and public-private partnerships funded or enabled under this expanded mandate; (d) which private sector entities, institutional investors, infrastructure funds, cloud providers, artificial intelligence firms, data centre operators, technology vendors, provincial entities, Crown corporations, foreign state-owned enterprises, or other partners have been engaged or are under consideration for participation in projects under this expanded mandate and, for each, (i) what is the entity name, (ii) what is the nature and stage of engagement, (iii) have any agreements, procurement processes, investments, or approvals been executed or are under consideration, (iv) what is the estimated value of any proposed federal support, financing, guarantees, or risk-sharing arrangements, (v) a summary of due diligence conducted or planned, including with respect to national security, competition, privacy, data sovereignty, and conflicts of interest; and (e) what measures are in place to ensure that compute capacity, training data, model access, and associated digital infrastructure financed through federal mechanisms remain subject to Canadian legal, audit, and sovereignty requirements? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1348
|
Monday, June 15, 2026 |
With regard to federal digital identity and digital credential initiatives, and related identity management systems: (a) which federal departments, agencies, or entities have received formal approval from the Government of Canada Enterprise Architecture Review Board for any digital identity or digital credential initiatives to date, and for each, what was the approved initiative and the date of approval; (b) is there any publicly available record or summary of Government of Canada Enterprise Architecture Review Board decisions related to citizen-facing digital identity systems, and, if so, where is it published; (c) what measures or evaluations exist to ensure that the use of digital identity credentials remains voluntary in practice, including ensuring that individuals who do not use digital credentials are not (i) denied access to federal services, (ii) subject to reduced service quality or delays, (iii) otherwise disadvantaged in accessing federal programs; (d) has any analysis been conducted regarding the risk of functional linkage between digital identity systems and program compliance or enforcement systems across departments, and what mitigation measures, if any, were identified; (e) what oversight mechanisms exist to ensure that personal information collected or processed through GC Sign-In, GC Issue and Verify, or related systems is (i) used only for its stated purpose, (ii) subject to appropriate consent and selective disclosure controls, (iii) not retained, shared, or repurposed beyond authorized uses; (f) which entity is responsible for auditing compliance across departments; (g) which federal departments currently use, are developing, or are testing biometric identity systems, and what safeguards exist to prevent interoperability or integration between biometric systems used for security, defence, or law enforcement purposes and civilian digital identity systems; and (h) what is the total annual expenditure of the Canadian Digital Service since its creation, including a breakdown by fiscal year and a breakdown of expenditures related specifically to digital identity or credential initiatives? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1127
|
Friday, April 24, 2026 |
With regard to the government’s decision to provide federal funding and enter into leasing arrangements related to Spaceport Nova Scotia and the development of a sovereign space launch capability: (a) what are the details of all analyses conducted prior to committing public funds, including (i) assessments of the site’s current operational capacity, infrastructure readiness, and launch track record, (ii) projected timelines and milestones for achieving a functional orbital launch capability, (iii) comparisons with alternative options for achieving sovereign launch capability, including partnerships or use of existing international facilities; (b) what are the full financial terms and obligations associated with the federal agreement, including (i) total projected expenditures over the life of the agreement, (ii) annual lease or payment structures, (iii) any performance conditions, benchmarks, or clawback provisions tied to the funding, (iv) any additional federal support provided or committed through other departments, agencies, or Crown corporations, (v) the rationale for entering into a long-term lease agreement for a site located on provincial Crown land, including any analyses comparing the cost of leasing versus acquisition or direct public development of similar infrastructure, (vi) whether the agreement was backdated, and, if so, the rationale for this decision and its financial or legal implications, (vii) any domestic content, procurement, or spending requirements attached to the funding, including any requirement that a portion of funds be spent in Canada, and how compliance with such requirements will be monitored, verified, and enforced; (c) what performance metrics, reporting requirements, and accountability mechanisms are in place to evaluate the use of public funds and project outcomes, including (i) expected economic benefits, job creation, and industry development, (ii) anticipated launch frequency and commercial viability, (iii) how and when these results will be reported to Parliament; (d) what risk assessments have been conducted regarding the project, including (i) financial risks and potential losses to taxpayers, (ii) technological and operational risks related to launch capability, (iii) risks associated with relying on foreign technology, supply chains, or partners, and what are the results of those assessments, (iv) any known performance, compliance, or credibility concerns identified by federal or provincial officials regarding the project proponents, including delays, reporting issues, or other deficiencies, and how those concerns were assessed and addressed prior to approving federal funding; (e) what consultations were undertaken prior to finalizing the agreement, including (i) which departments, agencies, provincial or municipal governments, and external experts were consulted, (ii) the dates and nature of those consultations, (iii) the key findings or advice provided; (f) what is the current status of the project, including (i) infrastructure completed to date, (ii) number and type of launches conducted, (iii) projected timeline for achieving regular commercial or government launch operations, (iv) the expected date of the first successful orbital launch from the site, and whether this timeline is a condition of continued federal funding; (g) what analysis has been conducted regarding Canada’s geographic suitability for satellite launches relative to other jurisdictions, and how did this analysis factor into the decision to invest in this specific site; (h) what are the details of all meetings attended by ministers, their staff or senior government officials with individuals or entities advocating for the project, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the names and titles of attendees, (iii) whether the meeting was in person, virtual or hybrid, (iv) the decisions made, if any; (i) what steps were taken by the government to identify, assess, and mitigate any real or perceived conflicts of interest, including those arising from political affiliations, past or current political roles, lobbying activities, or other connections, including the timing and outcomes of any such assessments; and (j) what are the details of all meetings which have taken place between federal ministers, ministerial staff, departments, agencies, and representatives of the project or its operators, including the number of meetings, dates, participants, and the subject matter discussed? |
Answered |
Wednesday, June 10, 2026 |
|
Q-1126
|
Friday, April 24, 2026 |
With regard to the government’s ongoing development of regulatory and technical frameworks relating to lawful access, digital communications systems, and telecommunications network design, including the proposals contained in Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, and related measures: (a) what technical capabilities, standards, or system requirements is the government currently developing, considering, or consulting on in relation to (i) telecommunications providers’ ability to enable government-authorized access to communication networks, (ii) the collection, retention, structuring, or use of metadata such as time, location, and connection data associated with electronic communications, (iii) the design or modification of network infrastructure to facilitate such capabilities; (b) what is the current status of broadband and high-speed internet deployment across Canada, including rural, remote, and northern communities, and what proportion of households currently lack access to reliable high-speed internet service meeting federal connectivity targets, broken down by region; (c) what assessments has the government undertaken regarding the capacity of existing telecommunications infrastructure to implement or support the technical requirements described in (a), including (i) any analysis of rural, remote, northern, and low-density service areas and associated network limitations or implementation constraints across Canada, (ii) the findings of those assessments, including any identified risks, gaps, or regional disparities in infrastructure readiness or capability, (iii) which stakeholders, industry participants, provinces, territories, or other parties were consulted, and the nature and timing of such consultations; (d) what analysis has been conducted regarding the distributional or equity impacts of the technical and regulatory approaches described in (a) and (c), including whether such analysis identified any differential impacts on rural, remote, or northern communities in terms of infrastructure burden, service feasibility, privacy exposure, or network concentration, and what were the results and conclusions of those analyses; (e) what role, if any, do federal ministers or departments currently exercise in defining or directing technical specifications, implementation standards, or regulatory requirements for telecommunication systems intended to support lawful access functions, including through regulation, guidance, or administrative instruments; and (f) what safeguards are currently being developed or applied to ensure that any government-directed or government-influenced technical requirements for telecommunications infrastructure are subject to judicial authorization frameworks, independent oversight mechanisms, and parliamentary review, rather than being determined solely through ministerial or regulatory processes? |
Answered |
Wednesday, June 10, 2026 |
|
Q-1125
|
Friday, April 24, 2026 |
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure’s statutory responsibility to ensure it operates in the public interest, since January 2025: (a) what formal clarification, guidance, or instructions has the minister issued to the Canada Infrastructure Bank regarding transparency and disclosure of loan terms, including interest rates, repayment structures, and risk-sharing provisions, and on what dates were such directions issued or communicated; (b) what mechanisms exist within the minister’s office or the department to review, assess, or monitor individual Canada Infrastructure Bank investments, and how are those mechanisms applied in practice, including the timing and scope of any review process; (c) what information is provided to the minister or his office regarding individual Canada Infrastructure Bank investments prior to approval, including briefings, summaries, risk assessments, or investment memos, and at what stage in the approval process is such information typically received; (d) does the minister receive information on whether Canada Infrastructure Bank loans are at, above, or below market rate, and, if so, what level of detail is provided and when; (e) what mechanisms are in place to ensure ministerial oversight in identifying and addressing potential real or perceived conflicts of interest involving individuals connected to Canada Infrastructure Bank-financed projects, including when such assessments are conducted and how the results are recorded and communicated to the minister; (f) what are the details of all communications between the minister or his office and the Canada Infrastructure Bank regarding specific investments prior to public announcements, including the nature, timing, and purpose of such communications; (g) how many times, since his appointment as minister in May 2025, has the minister communicated with the Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, including in-person meetings, virtual meetings, telephone calls, emails, text messages, or any other form of direct or indirect communication, and for each instance, what is the date, mode of communication, list of participants, and the subject matter discussed; (h) what direction, if any, has the minister provided to the Canada Infrastructure Bank regarding the assessment of domestic economic benefits, including the use of Canadian suppliers and supply chains, and when were such directions issued; (i) what requirements exist for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to demonstrate that private sector financing was actively sought prior to federal participation, and how is this verified, including what information is provided to the minister on this point; (j) what oversight does the minister exercise to ensure that Canada Infrastructure Bank financing does not displace private capital, and what analysis, if any, is provided to the minister on this issue, including timing and conclusions; (k) what systems are in place to track lobbying activity related to Canada Infrastructure Bank investments and report such activity to the minister or his office, and what information is routinely provided, including timing and format; and (l) how does the minister define his statutory responsibility under the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act to ensure that the Bank operates in the public interest, and what specific direction, guidance, or criteria have been issued by the minister or the department to clarify how that responsibility is exercised in practice, particularly in relation to individual investment decisions and the application of confidentiality provisions? |
Answered |
Wednesday, June 10, 2026 |
|
Q-1124
|
Friday, April 24, 2026 |
With regard to the $206.4 million loan provided by the Canada Infrastructure Bank to the Mersey River Wind project: (a) what are the details of all communications between the Canada Infrastructure Bank (including its executives, board members, and staff) and (i) any minister, (ii) any minister’s office, (iii) any federal department or agency, (iv) any federal Member of Parliament, in relation to the project, including, for each, the dates, participants, and subject matter of such communications; (b) what are the details of all communications that occurred between the Canada Infrastructure Bank and (i) Slate Asset Management, (ii) Roswall Development Inc., (iii) Renewall, (iv) any related project entities, (v) any registered lobbyists acting on behalf of the foregoing, including, for each, the dates, participants, and subject matter of such communications; (c) what due diligence was conducted by the Canada Infrastructure Bank in relation to the project, including (i) Know Your Client and integrity checks, (ii) conflict of interest assessments, (iii) Politically Exposed Person analyses, (iv) risk classification and mitigation measures, (v) any identification or assessment of political affiliations, connections, or prior public office of project principals and directors, and, for each, what were the results or findings, when were they conducted, and what conclusions were drawn; (d) what are the details of all data and analyses considered by the Canada Infrastructure Bank Investment Committee and Board of Directors in approving the loan, including (i) financial models, (ii) credit risk assessments, (iii) project viability, including projected revenues and pricing, (iv) alternative financing options, (v) other sources of public funding, (vi) applicable subsidies or tax measures, (vii) domestic economic or supply chain impacts; (e) what are the key terms of the loan agreement, including (i) the interest rate and the methodology used to determine it, (ii) the repayment schedule and term, (iii) any security and guarantees, (iv) any concessionary elements or risk-sharing provisions; (f) when and how did the Canada Infrastructure Bank become aware of any political affiliations, connections, or prior public roles of individuals involved in the project, and what considerations were given to potential political sensitivities or reputational risks; (g) what assessment was made by the Canada Infrastructure Bank regarding (i) the project’s ability to secure private sector financing prior to receiving public funding, (ii) whether the project could proceed without public financing, (iii) whether the financing displaced or supplemented private capital, and, for each, what were the results or findings, when were these assessments conducted, and what conclusions were reached; (h) what assessment was made of the project’s financial viability, including (i) projected electricity pricing, (ii) expected revenues, (iii) the capacity factor, (iv) sensitivity to interest rates or changes in financing terms, and, for each, what were the results or findings, when were these assessments conducted, and what conclusions or determinations were reached; (i) what assessment was made of the total level of public funding provided to the project, including federal tax credits, accelerated capital cost allowance, and other federal or provincial programs, and how was this total support factored into the financing decision, including any conclusions reached; and (j) what assessment was made of the domestic economic benefit of the project, including (i) the proportion of spending directed to Canadian versus foreign suppliers, (ii) any requirements or conditions related to Canadian content or domestic procurement, and, for each assessment, what were the results or findings, when were these assessments conducted, and what conclusions or determinations were reached? |
Answered |
Wednesday, June 10, 2026 |
