|
Q-882
|
Thursday, February 19, 2026 |
With regard to the government’s assessment of electric vehicles manufactured by, incorporating components from, or connected to companies headquartered in, or subject to the laws of, the People’s Republic of China: (a) what assessment has the government conducted regarding the potential risks of espionage, unauthorized data access, remote interference, or other forms of foreign state influence arising from the use of such vehicles in Canada; (b) what were the findings, conclusions, recommendations, or warnings arising from each assessment identified in (a); (c) which departments or agencies are responsible for evaluating cybersecurity, data security, and national security risks associated with connected vehicle technologies, and what coordination mechanisms exist between them to share information about risk evaluation; (d) what safeguards, regulatory requirements, or security standards are currently in place to prevent the unauthorized transmission of personal, geolocation, biometric, or governmental data from electric vehicles to foreign entities; (e) how does the government plan to enforce the measures in (d) for new electric vehicles coming from the People’s Republic of China; (f) has the government imposed, or is it planning, any restrictions, prohibitions, enhanced security reviews, or procurement limitations relating to electric vehicles or electric vehicle components linked to foreign adversarial states, and, if so, what are the details; (g) what oversight mechanisms exist to monitor over-the-air software updates, embedded telematics systems, and data storage practices in such vehicles; and (h) what steps is the government taking to ensure that federal departments, agencies, Crown corporations, and critical infrastructure operators are protected from potential surveillance or cyber vulnerabilities arising from the use of these vehicles? |
Answered |
Monday, April 13, 2026 |
|
Q-881
|
Thursday, February 19, 2026 |
With regard to federal investments, including Canada Infrastructure Bank financing and any other federal grants, in zero emission buses and associated electric vehicle infrastructure, including charging and hydrogen refuelling projects, broken down by each municipality, province, or territory which received such financing or grants: (a) how many buses have been delivered and are currently in revenue service, and how many were out of service previously and are currently out of service, and for what reasons; (b) what is the total federal contribution, including Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, per bus in each jurisdiction; (c) what is the country of manufacture of the buses supplied in each jurisdiction, and what is the country of incorporation of each bus supplier; (d) what reporting or accountability mechanisms exist to ensure these investments achieve their intended outcomes; (e) what operational, maintenance, and supplier risk mitigation measures are in place; (f) what are the actual measured reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and operational cost savings compared with equivalent diesel buses, and what are the data to date for each jurisdiction and fleet segment; (g) what contractual measures are in place to protect taxpayer funding from loss, including any performance guarantees, collateral requirements, warranties, or other mechanisms intended to safeguard public capital in the event of supplier failure; and (h) with regard to projects financed or co-financed under the Charging and Hydrogen Refuelling Infrastructure Initiative, (i) what projects have been approved to date, broken down by jurisdiction, proponent, and total federal contribution, including Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, (ii) what is the current status of each project (announced, under construction, operational, delayed, or cancelled), (iii) what performance metrics, reporting requirements, and contractual protections, including clawback or repayment provisions, are in place to ensure value for money and the protection of public funds? |
Answered |
Monday, April 13, 2026 |
|
Q-880
|
Thursday, February 19, 2026 |
With regard to projects financed or co-financed by the Canada Infrastructure Bank since 2017: (a) what are the details of all projects which involved foreign-based entities as proponents, contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, or shipyards, including, for each, the (i) project name, (ii) location, (iii) amount of Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, (iv) project description, (v) summary of involvement from foreign-based entities; (b) for each project identified in (a), what foreign-based entities were involved and was the Canada Infrastructure Bank aware of the foreign involvement prior to signing the financing agreement, and, if so, how was that awareness documented; (c) which individual projects were subject at any stage, including pre- or post-financial close, to any review, assessment, or evaluation of national security, supply-chain vulnerabilities, or strategic risk, and for each such project, at what stage did the review occur, which federal department, agency, or ministerial office conducted the review, was the Canada Infrastructure Bank formally notified, and what were the outcomes, findings, or recommendations; and (d) what formal processes and policies does the government use to identify, assess, and manage risks related to foreign involvement in Canada Infrastructure Bank projects and to national security and supply-chain vulnerabilities, and how do these processes ensure oversight even where no formal notification is provided to the Canada Infrastructure Bank? |
Answered |
Monday, April 13, 2026 |
|
Q-879
|
Thursday, February 19, 2026 |
With regard to the Vaccine Injury Support Program, using all data held by, or obtainable by, the Public Health Agency of Canada in the course of administering or overseeing the program: (a) according to the latest Public Health Agency of Canada review of program data, how many claims have been submitted since the program’s launch, broken down by fiscal year and by province or territory; (b) of these claims, how many have been approved, denied, withdrawn, or remain pending, broken down by year; (c) for claims that have been approved, what are the average and median processing times, broken down by stage of review; (d) for claims that have been denied, what were the primary reasons for denial, broken down by category; (e) what are the average and median compensation amounts awarded to date, and what is the total compensation paid; (f) what proportion of total program funding has been spent on administration as compared to direct compensation to claimants; (g) what steps has the Public Health Agency of Canada taken to ensure this information is made publicly available to Parliament rather than solely through third-party websites; and (h) once the Public Health Agency of Canada assumes direct management of the program, what additional reporting or transparency commitments will the agency make to Parliament regarding program operations, outcomes, and accountability? |
Answered |
Monday, April 13, 2026 |
|
Q-736
|
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 |
With regard to any actual, proposed or exploratory involvement of Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates in activities, transactions, investments, guarantees or financial arrangements undertaken by the Canada Growth Fund since 2022: (a) what projects, investments or transactions approved by the Canada Growth Fund have involved Brookfield or any Brookfield-controlled entity, including, for each, (i) the project name and location, (ii) the amount of Canada Growth Fund financing, (iii) the financial instrument used (for example, equity, concessional capital, contract-for-differences, guarantee), (iv) the role played by Brookfield, (v) the expected rate of return or public benefit, (vi) any conditions, performance requirements, or de-risking provisions applicable; (b) has the government or the Canada Growth Fund had any meetings, correspondence, briefings or consultations with Brookfield related to industrial decarbonization, clean technology, hydrogen, carbon capture, digital infrastructure or energy-transition investments, and, if so, what are the details of each communication, including (i) the date, (ii) the officials present, (iii) the topics discussed, (iv) a summary of any documents exchanged, (v) any resulting action items or recommendations; (c) has the Canada Growth Fund or any federal department ever evaluated Brookfield as a delivery partner for large-scale blended finance vehicles, and, if so, are any such evaluations referenced, resembled or incorporated concepts from the proposed “Maple Fund” disclosed publicly in September 2024; (d) has the government analyzed harmonizing Canada Growth Fund and Canada Infrastructure Bank financing through a strategic financing framework that could enable Brookfield, or any other private asset manager, to participate in or control digital, artificial intelligence, energy or industrial-infrastructure projects financed through public funds; and (e) what safeguards exist to ensure that public funds administered through the Canada Growth Fund do not result in undue concentration of influence by any single private-sector entity or asset manager, including Brookfield? |
Answered |
Monday, January 26, 2026 |
|
Q-735
|
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 |
With regard to any actual, planned, proposed or exploratory involvement of Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates in projects financed, co-financed, guaranteed, supported or otherwise facilitated by the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the Government of Canada, since 2017: (a) what past, current or pending Canada Infrastructure Bank investments have involved Brookfield or any Brookfield-controlled entity, including, for each investment, (i) the name and location of the project, (ii) the total project cost, (iii) the amount of Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, (iv) the form of financing (for example, loan, equity, guarantee, revenue agreement, or other), (v) the role played by Brookfield or its subsidiaries, (vi) the contractual or ownership structure of the project, (vii) all due-diligence steps undertaken prior to approval, (viii) the date on which the project was approved; (b) has the government or the Canada Infrastructure Bank had any discussions, meetings, correspondence, memoranda or briefings since January 1, 2022, relating to potential collaboration with Brookfield on digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence infrastructure, cloud or compute infrastructure or any other project category added to the Canada Infrastructure Bank mandate in budget 2025, and, if so, what are the details of each communication, including (i) the date, (ii) the participating officials, (iii) the subject matter discussed, (iv) a summary of the briefing materials or decks exchanged, (v) any recorded outcomes or next steps; (c) has the government or the Canada Infrastructure Bank evaluated Brookfield as a potential delivery partner for artificial intelligence compute infrastructure, sovereign cloud capacity, national analytics systems or any other digital infrastructure projects referenced in budget 2025, and, if so, what were the findings; (d) has the government ever considered or evaluated a structure similar to the “Maple Fund” proposal reported publicly in September 2024, and, if so, (i) which departments or Crown corporations were involved, (ii) which pension funds were consulted, (iii) what due diligence or policy analysis was conducted, (iv) were any aspects of that model incorporated into the strategic financing framework announced in budget 2025; and (e) what safeguards, if any, has the government implemented to ensure that the expanded Canada Infrastructure Bank mandate for digital and artificial intelligence infrastructure does not result in undue influence, concentration of control or preferential positioning for any single private entity or asset manager, including Brookfield? |
Answered |
Monday, January 26, 2026 |
|
Q-734
|
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 |
With regard to the government’s medical assistance in dying policy and preparations to expand eligibility to individuals whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness by March 2027: (a) what internal committees, working groups or advisory bodies are currently responsible for developing the framework for this expansion; (b) what consultations have been conducted since 2023, including, for each, the (i) dates, (ii) participants, (iii) summaries of written submissions received; (c) what draft guidelines, risk analyses or policy options have been circulated within the government or to external stakeholders; (d) what plans exist for formal parliamentary scrutiny prior to 2027, and will those plans include the tabling of all analyses and documents so Parliament and the public can review the work undertaken; (e) what safeguards, assessment criteria and clinical protocols is the government considering, particularly given the lack of consensus regarding the irremediability of mental illness; (f) since 2023, has the government consulted independent experts, including human rights experts, regarding potential impacts on vulnerable Canadians; (g) what concerns, warnings or dissenting opinions have been raised by federal officials, external experts or researchers; (h) what recommendations have been made to mitigate the risks identified in these analyses or consultations; (i) have any government analyses assessed the policy option of not proceeding with the expansion, in light of evidence that medical assistance in dying for mental illness cannot be implemented safely within an acceptable margin of risk to vulnerable Canadians; (j) how is the government working to protect the conscience rights of physicians who oppose medical assistance in dying, in light of recent Health Canada guidance encouraging clinicians to raise medical assistance in dying as an option; and (k) what complaints, reviews or appeals has the government received regarding medical assistance in dying delivery, and how it is addressing ongoing transparency concerns surrounding medical assistance in dying cases? |
Answered |
Monday, January 26, 2026 |
|
Q-733
|
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 |
With regard to all behavioural science experiments, evaluations, analyses and prototypes, and other policy or service-design work undertaken by the Privy Council Office’s Impact and Innovation Unit since its creation, including those conducted with or for other federal departments: (a) what current and past projects has the Impact and Innovation Unit undertaken, including, for each project, the (i) title, (ii) dates during which it was active, (iii) sponsoring department, (iv) costs, (v) objectives, (vi) names of any external contractors used; (b) what research methodologies and behavioural frameworks were used for each project (for example, nudge theory, social-norming, fear-based framing); (c) what message-testing experiments were conducted and what internal ethical guidelines governed them; (d) how have Impact and Innovation Unit behavioural insights been used and integrated into Public Health Agency of Canada or other department’s communication plans; (e) what public reporting or parliamentary reporting practices exist for Impact and Innovation Unit projects, and, if none, why; and (f) what Impact and Innovation Unit insights, documents or research has been shared with the United Kingdom, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization or other foreign governments, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) summary of the material and data shared, (iii) purpose of the disclosure, (iv) the date on which it was shared? |
Answered |
Monday, January 26, 2026 |
