Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 11 of 11
2015-06-12 [p.2750]
Q-1214 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Northumberland Ferry Service between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia: (a) how much of the 2014 Budget's $58 million for three Atlantic ferry services has been budgeted for this service, broken down by fiscal year; (b) on what date is the current contract set to expire; (c) what are the details of each contract signed between the federal government and Northumberland Ferry Services Limited for the operation of this service since its establishment, including the (i) date the contract was signed, (i) length of the contract, (iii) funding allocated; (d) based on government findings, what economic impact does this ferry service have on (i) Prince Edward Island, (ii) Nova Scotia; (e) do government plans for this service include (i) provisions for it to be in place for the next five years, (ii) provisions to maintain or exceed current levels of service; (f) what are the details of all government correspondences and documents relating to this ferry service, broken down by (i) relevant file or internal tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved; and (g) what are the details of the government’s 2010 public service review of this ferry service? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1214.
2015-06-04 [p.2636]
Q-1167 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic Incorporated, for fiscal years 1998 to 2007, and for fiscal years 2007-2008 to 2014-2015, respectively, while taking into consideration any transition to new accounting periods: (a) what was the (i) annual parliamentary appropriation supplied to Marine Atlantic Incorporated, (ii) total annual revenue collected from users, (iii) annual gross revenue; (b) what was the percentage of cost recovery from users broken down by (i) company-wide operations, (ii) the Port aux Basques to North Sydney route operations, (iii) the Argentia to North Sydney route operations; (c) based on the information provided in (b), what capital and what operational inputs are generally included in items (i) to (iii) respectively; (d) what rates have been charged to users for each type of service offered by Marine Atlantic Incorporated during this period and what was the effective net rate for each such service, broken down by any (i) additional service fees, (ii) fuel surcharges, (iii) security fees, (iv) all other incremental fees or charges that may have been applied; (e) what was the first year that a fuel surcharge was applied to any rates; and (f) has there been a year in which the previous year’s fuel surcharge was rolled into or combined with the previously established rates, and subsequently, a new fuel surcharge established over and above the new rate? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1167.
2015-06-04 [p.2636]
Q-1168 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) what were the costs incurred to refit each vessel to comply with Canadian safety standards or to refurbish or alter the vessels in any way before Marine Atlantic took possession of each vessel, for the (i) Motor Vessel (MV) Atlantic Vision, (ii) MV Blue Puttees, (iii) MV Highlanders; (b) what were the costs incurred to refit each vessel to comply with Canadian safety standards or to refurbish or alter the vessels in any way after Marine Atlantic took possession of each vessel in (a); (c) what were the annual lease costs paid out from 2008-2009 to the present, as well as the anticipated annual lease costs for each vessel in (a); (d) what, if any, is the pre-negotiated purchase price for each vessel if they were to be purchased from their owners by Transport Canada or Marine Atlantic at the end of their current leases, for each vessel in (a); (e) what are the anticipated costs to Transport Canada or to Marine Atlantic of not renewing the vessel leases beyond the current terms and returning the vessels to their owners for each vessel in (a); and (f) based on the information in (e), what are the details of these costs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1168.
2015-06-04 [p.2637]
Q-1175 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) what are all projects, initiatives, or expenditures stemming from the five-year investment fund announced in the 2010 federal budget, broken down by: (i) cost, (ii) date, (iii) timelines, (iv) rationales for each project or initiative; (b) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentations relating to the five-year investment, including (i) relevant file or tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved; (c) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentation concerning Marine Atlantic Incorporated as it relates to the Ferry Services Stewardship and Support Program and the Transportation Infrastructure Program through Transport Canada since the creation of these programs, including (i) relevant file or tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved; (d) has Marine Atlantic undertaken any advertising or marketing of the promotional discount campaign for the North Sydney-Argentia run and, if so, what has been done, broken down by (i) date, (ii) cost, (iii) medium, (iv) targeted audiences; (e) again with respect to the promotional discount campaign, (i) what is the rationale in detail concerning the status and future planning of the promotional discount campaign for ferry services, (ii) what is the rationale in detail why the promotional discount campaign was not applied to the Port aux Basques-North Sydney run, (iii) was any public opinion research conducted prior to launching the promotional discount campaign and, if so, what are the details of any such research; and (f) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentation concerning the promotional discount campaign, including (i) relevant file or tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1175.
2015-04-20 [p.2369]
Q-1077 — Ms. Freeland (Toronto Centre) — With regard to safety measures for commercial railways since January 2006: (a) what was the total number of safety audits conducted by Transport Canada, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) operator, (iv) those carried out in the Greater Toronto Area, (v) those carried out within 5 km of the Summerhill-North Toronto CPR Station, (vi) associated cost, (vii) percentage passed, (viii) percentage failed; (b) what was the total number of operator-led audits performed, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) operator, (iv) those carried out in the Greater Toronto Area, (v) those carried out on the CP North Toronto Subdivision, (vi) associated cost, (vii) percentage passed, (viii) percentage failed; (c) what are the details of Transport Canada’s most recent safety audit for each area of track between stations, broken down by (i) date, (ii) province, (iii) operator, (iv) subdivision name, (v) internal tracking number of report, (vi) result, (vii) recommended follow-up action, (viii) associated cost; (d) what was the total number of safety audits performed by Transport Canada on equipment, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) operator, (iv) results, (v) recommended follow-up action, (vi) associated costs; (e) what was the total number of operator-led safety audits performed on equipment, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) operator, (iv) results, (v) recommended follow-up action; (f) what was the total number of safety audits recommended by Transport Canada, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) those intended to be carried out in the Greater Toronto Area; (g) what was the total number of safety auditors employed by Transport Canada, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) those employed in the Greater Toronto Area, (iv) full-time, part-time, or contract status; (h) what was the total number of job postings for safety auditors, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) those employed in the Greater Toronto Area, (iv) full-time, part-time, or contract status; (i) what was the total number of apprentices or trainees receiving training to conduct safety audits, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) those being trained in the Greater Toronto Area, (iv) full-time, part-time, or contract status; (j) what was the total government cost of training new safety auditors, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) full-time, part-time, or contract status; (k) what are the details of any internal training programs intended to provide the necessary training to conduct safety audits, including (i) name or subject, (ii) province, (iii) starting date, (iv) duration, (v) internal tracking numbers of documents related to such programs, (vi) outcomes;
(l) what are the details of any Transport Canada training programs intended to provide safety training to operators, including (i) name or subject, (ii) province, (iii) starting date, (iv) duration, (v) internal tracking numbers of documents related to such programs, (vi) associated cost; (m) what was the total number of accidents reported within the Greater Toronto Area, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) cause of accident (e.g., collision or derailment), (iii) total number of injuries, (iv) total number of fatalities, (v) monetary value of damage to goods, property or environment, (vi) type of material being transported, (vii) follow-up action recommended, (viii) follow-up action taken; (n) what was the total number of accidents reported within 5 km of the Summerhill-North Toronto CPR Station, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) cause of accident (e.g., collision or derailment), (iii) total number of injuries, (iv) total number of fatalities, (v) type of material being transported, (vi) follow-up action recommended, (vii) follow-up action taken; (o) for each calendar year in the period in question, what was the total government spending on oversight of follow-up action following rail accidents, broken down by (i) province, (ii) amounts spent within the Greater Toronto Area, (iii) amounts spent following incidents within 5 km of the Summerhill-North Toronto CPR Station; (p) what was the total number of safety concerns or complaints reported, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) concerns reported within the Greater Toronto Area, (iv) concerns reported within 5 km of the Summerhill-North Toronto CPR Station; (q) what was the total number of staff reprimands for safety violations, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) operator, (iv) safety violations within the Greater Toronto Area, (v) safety violations within 5 km of the Summerhill-North Toronto CPR Station; (r) what was the total number of staff terminated for safety violations, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) operator, (iv) safety violations within the Greater Toronto Area, (v) safety violations within 5 km of the Summerhill-North Toronto CPR Station; (s) what was the total of government spending on advertising related to the promotion of rail safety measures and precautions, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) type of media (e.g., print, radio, television), (iv) starting date, (v) duration; and (t) what was the total of government spending on advertising promoting the safety of Canadian railways, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) province, (iii) type of media (e.g., print, radio, television), (iv) starting date, (v) duration? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1077.
2015-03-31 [p.2318]
Q-1034 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the operation of the federal Crown Corporation Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI) and the policy and operational oversight provided for MAI by Transport Canada: (a) what is Transport Canada’s rationale for its decision to acquire or charter new vessels of approximately 200 metres in length to renew the MAI fleet, in light of the fact that the MAI Board of Directors had previously approved their consultant’s recommendation that vessels of 175 metres in length would be best suited to the service; (b) what were the perceived advantages of the longer vessels that outweighed the increased likelihood that their operations would be inhibited by poor weather; (c) what was Transport Canada’s rationale for establishing a four-vessel fleet for MAI, given the 2005 Report from the Minister of Transport’s Advisory Committee on Marine Atlantic Inc. that had recommended a three-vessel fleet; (d) does MAI track delays that customers experience in order to make new bookings during peak times, (i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (e) does MAI collect data on the delay between a customer’s preferred travel date and the date for which they are actually able to make a reservation for travel, (i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (f) during times of traffic backlog (e.g., because of excess demand, mechanical failure or poor weather) is it MAI’s policy not to take new reservations, or allow vehicles to buy passage and enter the parking lots, until the backlog is cleared and, if so, why; (g) in what ways do the new collective agreements signed between 2011 and 2013 for MAI employees allow additional operational flexibility and potential for labour cost savings to MAI, compared to the previous collective agreements; (h) what measureable benefits has MAI received as a result of the new collective agreements; (i) is the loan for the MV Leif Ericson still being paid out of the operating budget and, if so, why; (j) other than the Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare, has MAI ever introduced any other fare options to give users more choice and increase fare revenue and, if not, why not; (k) is it MAI’s current policy to give tractor-trailers loading priority over drop trailers and, if not, why not; (l) did MAI apply to Transport Canada Marine Safety in order to be able to allow more drivers of tractor-trailers onboard restricted sailings and, if not, why not; (m) has an independent ombudsman ever been appointed to receive customer complaints regarding MAI’s service and, if not, why not; (n) how has the effectiveness of MAI’s maintenance management systems and practices improved since 2009; (o) does MAI track the average time between equipment failures, (i) if so, what trends have been observed in equipment performance measures since 2009, (ii) if not, why not; (p) what objective indicators has MAI established with respect to vessel turnaround time; and (q) what trends have been observed in the indicators mentioned in (p)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1034.
2015-01-26 [p.1976]
Q-779 — Ms. Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry) — With regard to the ship Kathryn Spirit moored in Beauharnois, Quebec: (a) has Environment Canada or Transport Canada received a towing plan or an environmental certificate application from the ship’s owner and, if so, when was this plan received; (b) according to government information, is Reciclajes Ecologicos Maritimos the ship’s owner; (c) if the answer to (b) is no, who owns the ship, according to government information; (d) has the government conducted an analysis as to whether federal legislation allows the ship to be dismantled at its mooring location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (e) has the government conducted an analysis of the risk of pollution from dismantling the ship and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (f) according to government information, does the ship contain toxic materials and, if so, what are they; (g) is there a port equipped to dismantle such a ship in Canada and, if so, where is it;
(h) has the government analyzed whether federal legislation allows it to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (i) does the government intend to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location; and (j) has the government conducted an analysis on dismantling the ship in the Port of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield or in another port elsewhere in the country and, if so, has it estimated the cost of such an operation? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-779.
2014-03-24 [p.677]
Q-231 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has Transport Canada received since the amended Railway Safety Act came into force on May 1, 2013; (b) with regard to the reports in (a), what is Transport Canada's process for (i) reviewing, (ii) investigating, (iii) reporting, (iv) corrective measures, (v) safety advisories or bulletins; (c) with regard to the reports in (a), how many Transport Canada inspectors (i) have been assigned to review the reports, (ii) have performed on-site inspections as follow-up to the reports; (d) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has the Transportation Safety Board of Canada received for the period of 2006-2013; and (e) for each year since 2006, with regard to the reports in (d), how many (i) were for unsafe conditions, (ii) were for unsafe procedures and practices, (iii) required corrective action, (iv) were satisfactorily resolved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-231.
2014-01-27 [p.408]
Q-130 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways were permitted to operate with a single operator; (b) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on main lines, with or without an idling locomotive; (c) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on side lines, with or without an idling locomotive; (d) with regard to the railways in (b) and (c), under what specific conditions could the trains be left unattended; (e) what legislative or regulatory framework governs local emergency preparedness plans in the event of a rail accident;
(f) with respect to the plans in (e), (i) who is responsible for creating and executing such plans, (ii) by whom are they audited, (iii) how often are they audited, (iv) against what criteria are they audited; (g) by whom and how often are municipalities through which freight trains pass provided with regular reports on (i) the state of local emergency preparedness in the event of a rail accident, (ii) the state and maintenance record of the railway lines within their borders, (iii) the materials, hazardous or not, that are transported through their jurisdiction; (h) if reports referred to in (g) are not provided, why not; (i) how many DOT-111 railway tank cars and DOD-112 tank cars are in use in Canada, for each year since 2006; (j) for each year since 2006, how many rolling-stock and track-safety inspectors were employed at Transport Canada, broken down by (i) province of work, (ii) oversight responsibility;
(k) for each year since 2006, how many rolling-stock and track-safety inspectors employed by Transport Canada were responsible for inspections in (i) the Greater Montreal Area, (ii) the municipality of Pointe-Claire, (iii) the municipality of Beaconsfield, (iv) the municipality of Baie d’Urfé, (v) the municipality of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue; (l) how frequently are railway tracks inspected in (i) populated areas, (ii) unpopulated ones; (m) since 2006, when have the rail tracks between downtown Montreal and the City of Vaudreuil-Dorion been inspected; (n) does Transport Canada have a system of evaluation in place, based on the results of inspections by its inspectors, that ranks the operational state of different sections of railway tracks; (o) with regard to the system in (n), if it exists, does this system or database correlate with allowable train speeds on each section of track and with which company owns each section;
(p) for each year since 2006, how many freight train derailments, minor and major, have taken place in Canada, broken down by province; (q) with respect to the derailments in (p), how many took place on (i) a horizontal track, (ii) a sloping track, (iii) curved track, (iv) straight track; (r) for each year since 2006, how many cases of runaway freight trains have been reported in Canada, broken down by province; (s) for each year since 2006, how many train accidents, derailments or other, involving hazardous materials have there been; (t) how are the contents of rail cargo verified by the government or its agencies to determine if the contents conform to the contents labels/markings on the individual rail cars; (u) what is the process by which environmental risks of the transport by rail of oil and gas or other hazardous materials are assessed;
(v) what quantity and type of goods are shipped annually by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific on lines that run through Montreal’s West Island in each of the last 5 years; (w) what are the allowable speeds for freight trains travelling different rail segments in the southwestern corridor of the island of Montreal from downtown Montreal to the city of Vaudreuil-Dorion; (x) with regard to the speed limits in (w), how is adherence to these limits monitored by Transport Canada; (y) with respect to the slowing of rail speed due to poor track conditions, how does Transport Canada verify that rail operators are implementing reduced speeds; (z) what is the slowest speed at which a rail operator will be allowed to operate its trains over a portion of track experiencing poor conditions before all traffic must be halted due to the poor track condition; and (aa) subsequent to the fatal accident in Lac-Mégantic, what plans are in place for reducing the speeds of freight trains passing through Canadian municipalities? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-130.
2011-12-05 [p.608]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Ms. Hoeppner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-179 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With regard to Transport Canada, and the government’s role in the management and operation of the Victoria Harbour Airport (VHA) and the Victoria Harbour: (a) what is the process by which Transport Canada or its agents have evaluated, are evaluating, and plan to evaluate the impact on quality of life, noise and air pollution and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (b) to date, what analysis has the government conducted with respect to the effects on the communities surrounding the airport and their residents of the impact on quality of life, noise, air pollutants and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (c) what further analysis does the government plan to conduct with respect to the effects on the communities surrounding the airport and their residents of the impact on quality of life, noise, air pollutants and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (d) what are the parameters of all past and planned analyses with respect to the effects on the communities surrounding the airport and their residents of the impact on quality of life, noise, air pollutants and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (e) what steps has the government taken and what steps will it take to address problems associated with the impact on quality of life noise, air pollutants and air traffic frequency (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (f) what is the timeline for completion of this process, including but not limited to (i) any evaluations, (ii) any decision to regulate or impose rules with respect to noise and air pollution and the frequency of air traffic; (g) with respect to the past and planned residents’ committees and any public consultation relating to the VHA, what will be the composition of the residents’ committee; (h) what action has the government taken on the basis of past results, information, and recommendations arising out of public consultation thus far, including the past residents’ committee; (i) what are the terms of reference for the new residents’ committee, including, but not limited to scope, powers, membership, evaluation criteria; (j) how will Transport Canada and the VHA evaluate and act upon the results, information, concerns and recommendations of the residents’ committee; (k) what policies, practices and procedures do Transport Canada and the VHA have in place to mitigate all real or perceived conflicts of interest between Transport Canada’s role as both operator of the VHA and as the government body having jurisdiction over aeronautics; (l) what are the current government policies, practices and procedures relating to its federal responsibilities with respect to noise and traffic pollution; (m) what are the details of all current draft regulations pertaining to the VHA and its operations; (n) when does the government or its agents plan to publish permanent air safety or other regulations pertaining to the VHA and its operations; (o) does the VHA have a complete Safety Management System (SMS); (p) what are the details of the process by which Transport Canada is assessing the application to build a mega yacht marina in Victoria Harbour (Marina); (q) what policies, practices and procedures do Transport Canada and the VHA have in place to mitigate all real or perceived conflicts of interest between Transport Canada’s role as both operator of the VHA and as the government body having jurisdiction to approve or deny the construction of the marina under the Navigable Waters Protection Act; (r) what are the details of the current timeline for the approval or rejection of the marina application; (s) what are the details of the timeline for the completion of the VHA’s assessment of the Marina under its SMS; (t) who is bearing the cost of the VHA’s assessment of the marina and Transport Canada’s assessment of the marina; (u) what is the estimated cost of all activities related to Transport Canada's and the VHA’s assessments of the marina; (v) what are the details of the impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts on safety, that the marina would have on marine and air traffic in Victoria harbour; and (w) how is Transport Canada including the impact of the marina on non-motorized vessels such as kayaks and canoes in its review of the marina proposal? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-179.
2011-09-19 [p.208]
Q-79 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — With respect to the safety management systems (SMS) put in place by airlines since 2005, and following the appearance of the Chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on February 21, 2007: (a) how many SMS inspections were carried out by Transport Canada inspectors, and on which airlines; (b) for each inspection carried out by Transport Canada, was the airline in compliance with the security regulations in place at the time of inspection; (c) for each inspection that was completed on an airline that was not in compliance with the regulations, what measures were taken by the airline to ensure that compliance was achieved; (d) did Transport Canada verify Aveos SMS compliance and, if yes, when will its report be concluded; and (e) does Transport Canada intend to review the SMS regulations that airlines are subject to in the near future? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-79.
Results: 1 - 11 of 11

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data