The authors have systematically compiled and organized permafrost temperature data from Canada covering the period up to 2025. Given the substantial volume of the dataset and the detailed methodological approach employed, this work not only offers critical baseline data for future simulations of permafrost dynamics in high‑latitude regions, but also constitutes a significant reference for the spatial distribution mapping of permafrost across Canada.

The authors compiled 427 GT and 491 GST data sites. It would be good to include a figure in the manuscript illustrating the temperature distribution of GST and GT.

Table 1: When referring to Table 1, the measurement depth for GT (Ground Temperature) is not specified. We suggest that the authors provide a range of measurement depths for GT in the table.

Line 240: Is this method applicable to all situations? Is there any supporting evidence or reference, and what is the rationale for choosing this particular formula?

Line 260: How were the values of 11%, 23%, and 36% derived? Were the values 70%, 80%, and 90% the only ones derived from the raw data, or were they chosen among others? What is the rationale behind this choice?

5 next steps: I would suggest changing the title. Don't use this one — it reads more like the next step in discussing a matter rather than a proper title.

The manuscript "A standardized permafrost ground temperature collection for Canada 2025" describes probably the most comprehensive compilation of standardized ground temperature time-series in permafrost areas across Canada. It includes data collected from repositories, but also extensive datasets provided directly by individual researchers and institutions. It includes both active layer and permafrost temperatures, as well as ground surface temperature. It integrates data from 29 published datasets and 13 unpublished contributions, encompassing 427 GT and 491 GST sites across British Columbia, Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Québec, and Yukon.

Ground temperature data in permafrost regions are typically measured in complex and remote terrain, facing complex constraints, from borehole installation to data collection logistics, and even in data curation, and is many times still spread in different repositories, this dataset becomes especially relevant. It facilitates data collection for specific sites, but it also provides unvaluable data for the modeling community.

The data is presented in a standardized form into daily temperatures at specific depths, with the standardization process bein described in detail. Due to the differences in the data sets, standardization needs to account for data limitations and this has been done by the authors in a clear and transparent way, which is well described in the manuscript. The data curation was supported by the software package tempcf which available for community use and it works surprisingly well, allowing for changes associated to data cleaning to be recorded in a specific log. The dataset and all associated curation files are made available at Zenodo and easy to download. The same data is also accessible online via an ERDDAP server that allows for easy data visualization (including graphical) and download in multiple common formats. These are excellent practice and show the correct application of the FAIR principles.

Given the very high quality of the dataset, the clear organization of the data and curation of the data, as well as the completeness and clarity of the manuscript, I consider it should be accepted following minor reviews, which I indicate below.

Detailed comments:

- line 63 - consider changing "we also sent personal requests for contributions of unpublished ground temperature data to individuals" to ""we also sent personal requests and received contributions of unpublished ground temperature data from individuals".

- Line 72:  You mention that when not available, elevation data was collected from Google Maps Elevation API. Please clarify what is the data source that was used as DEM in that API, so that potential innacuracies can be identified in the future (may be the DEM quality will change with time). If this is not possible to know, indicate this as a limitation.

- lines 90-91: "Measurements that clearly diverged from the surrounding ground temperature signal were removed." Clarify what you mean with surrounding. I think it relates to time in the dataset and not to space. Please rephrase for clarity.

- Table 1: Please include a column with the period of observations of each dataset. This will make it easier for readers to understand what periods are available.

- Figure 3: Are the circles reflecting really the number of sites within 100x100km? They seem too close to each other for the area indicated for density. Please clarify.