Transport Canada Discussion Paper
September 16, 2003

PURPOSE

This document forms part of Transport Canada's contribution to the Smart Regulation initiative. It has been prepared for the consideration of the External Advisory Committee.

What follows is not an exhaustive study. Rather, this document highlights a few selected mechanisms, processes and policy instruments from various regulatory programs within Transport Canada.

INTRODUCTION

Transport Canada is responsible for the transportation policies, programs and goals set by the Government of Canada. Canada's national transportation policy focuses on fostering a safe, economic, efficient, adequate and accessible Canadian transportation system.¹ This policy has both economic and social dimensions.

From an economic perspective, ensuring the continued improvement of transportation services through a competitive marketplace has been a key focus of the federal transportation policy over the last 40 years. Legislatively, an ongoing challenge is identifying situations where market forces do not work properly and determining the nature and extent of government intervention needed to address these situations. Successive changes to the National Transportation Act and its successor, the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) liberalized market entry rules and largely dismantled the direct prescription of prices. As well, over the last two decades, the government has reduced, and in some cases eliminated, transportation subsidies, as well as devolving, divesting, privatizing and commercializing certain transportation entities, services and structures previously owned and/or operated by the government.

These reforms have contributed to a number of significant outcomes. The total output of transportation services (measured by passenger and freight movements) doubled between 1981 and 2000. For the transportation sector as a whole, productivity increased over the 1981 to 2000 period by 44%, averaging 1.9% annually. In comparison, for the economy as a whole during the same period, productivity improved by less that 10% or 0.5% annually. Moreover, annual transport costs fell by more than $13 billion over the period.

The legislatively mandated 2001 Report of the CTA review panel, concluded that Canada's transportation system was generally working well and not in need of a major overhaul.² However, transportation policy must continue to evolve in an environment characterized by heightened security concerns, increased North American integration and globalization, rapid technological, economic and global changes, expanding urbanization and climate change.

The government's response to the CTA review panel report is found in the policy framework document released by Transport Canada inFebruary of 2003. The document, entitled Straight Ahead: A Vision for Transportation in Canada, is forward looking: providing direction and purpose as the transportation system adapts to meet the challenges of the twenty first century. There are two underlying goals: to maintain and enhance competetiveness by having a transportation system which is efficient and able to adapt to new challenges; and, to enhance our quality of life by having a transportation system which is safe, secure and environmentally responsible. Economically the document supports the pursuit of a market-based regime for the transportation industry, while recognizing that targeted government intervention is needed where the market fails to achieve desired economic or social outcomes. Both this document and the CTA review panel report note the importance and challenge of "balancing" the economic and social (safety, security and the environment) goals of Canada's transportation policy.

The goals of Canada's transportation policy are reflected in the department's mission: to develop and administer policies, regulations and programs for a safe and secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system.

An ongoing priority has been the development of a modern and relevant legislative/regulatory framework that promotes the department's mission while adapting to the changing environment in which the department operates. As noted, divestiture and devolution have been key activities over the last decade and have had a profound impact on the department's role as it has moved from being an owner-operator of large parts of the transportation system (such as airports, ports and air navigation services) to one of mainly policy and regulatory oversight.

The changing role of the department has been the impetus for a reevaluation of the underlying assumptions for Transport Canada's legislative/regulatory framework. Modernizing of the framework is based on the belief that achieving the department's mission is a "shared responsibility". This means that the people and organizations we regulate (regulatees) as well as the other levels of government with whom we interact, and the citizens whom we serve, have a role to play in achieving the department's mission. In practical terms the changing roles and consequential shifting responsibilities have necessitated a complete overhaul and modernizing of our legislative and regulatory framework. This has been no small task in that Transport Canada has sole or shared responsibility to Parliament for 62 Acts and for the approximately 600 regulations flowing from these acts.

Although modernizing of our legislative and regulatory framework is ongoing, examples of "smart regulation" are emerging in the three following areas:

1. consultation mechanisms and models;
2. harmonization initiatives; and,
3. accountability models supporting "shifted" and/or "shared" responsibilities.

1. INNOVATIVE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS AND MODELS

The concept of shared responsibilities has had a profound effect on consultation mechanisms, processes and models used by Transport Canada. The department has established formal consultation mechanisms in the various transportation sectors tailored to address the particular needs of these sectors. Mechanisms such as the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC), the Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC), the Railway Safety Consultative Committee (RSCC), and the Minister's Advisory Council on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, are all examples of the Department's commitment tomeaningfully engage stakeholders in the regulation-making process.

In addition to making use of formal consultation mechanisms, Transport Canada continues to experiment with more contemporary consultation models and approaches geared towards specific issues and audiences (e.g. the general public). Town hall type meetings have been used in the aviation sector to address issues of a less technical nature, such as noise abatement. An Internet-based discussion site was used to facilitate nation-wide public consultations on a wide range of bus safety issues. The on-line site, which was in operation from February to June 2000, was designed and maintained externally by the Institute on Governance. In addition to informing and educating interested citizens and stakeholders about bus safety issues, this site increased participation by providing an accessible forum for members of the public who could not participate in face-to-face meetings. A focus group model of consultations that is combined with a "deliberative democracy approach" is being used to consider the issue of the use of telematics in motor vehicles.

For the purposes of this document, the CARAC mechanism and the consultation model incorporating a deliberative democracy approach will be outlined in more detail; the former because of its formal, institutionalized structure and of the buy-in that it has generated from regulatees, and the latter because of its relative novelty and because of its potential to further improve consultation processes and the quality of decision-making.

(a) Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC)

CARAC is a joint undertaking of government and the aviation community (e.g. management and labour organizations, operators, manufacturers and professional associations). The establishment of CARAC paralleled the mid 1990's massive reform of the regulatory frameworkgoverning civil aviation. CARAC and its processes were a reflection of the evolving relationship between the department and regulatees, one that promoted collaboration and partnership in the creation of regulations. CARAC played a significant role in the development of a modern set of regulations entitled the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). The CARs are a consolidation of the previous regulatory documents into a comprehensive eight-part publication. Updated and revised regulations, standards and guidance materials have been placed in a framework, which is more accessible, clear and logical.

CARAC's ongoing objective is to assess and recommend potential changes to the CARs through cooperative rule-making activities. It supports a collaborative rule-making approach and continuous improvement of the aviation regulatory system by:

1. increasing public access and participation in the rule-making process;
2. discussing and debating issues from various viewpoints;
3. bringing the various rule-making proposals to the notice of Transport Canada senior management at an early stage; and
4. facilitating harmonization with other national (or regional) aviation jurisdictions.

The basic structure of CARAC includes: the Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee (CARC), the general Plenary, Technical Committees and ad hoc Working Groups. The structure was intentionally designed to integrate with the regulatory framework and organizational structure governing civil aviation. For instance, the Technical Committees parallel the subject matter found in the 8 parts of the CARs. These committees, and the working groups established by these committees, consider alternatives to regulations, conduct regulatory impact analysis and benefit-cost analysis, comment on draft (regulatory) proposals, review and analyze assigned issues and make recommendations and proposals for regulatory action. The decision making body with respect to recommendations and proposals is the Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee (CARC) which is composed of senior departmental officials with civil aviation responsibilities. CARC also prioritizes and filters issues as well as assigning issues to the committees as required.

Over the years, CARAC and its processes have received praise from both industry and internal reviews. For example, in a review in 2000 of Transport Canada's compliance with the federal Regulatory Process Management Standards (RPMS), CARAC was deemed to have exceeded the consultation requirements of the RPMS³. This review also concluded that the "Request for Regulatory Action" process, whereby anyone can formally raise through CARAC a regulatory issue, was deemed a "best practice".

The following traits of CARAC and its processes make it an example of regulating smarter:

• it is broad based and inclusive - all aviation stakeholders are represented;
• it is transparent - all materials to be reviewed are widely distributed as are the decision records from all meetings;
• it encourages early involvement of stakeholders (from policy deliberations through to the content of draft regulations);
• it provides a forum for the consideration of various policy instruments (e.g. voluntary programs) and the airing of concerns and disputes (thereby reducing opposition to a regulation when it is published); and,
• it facilitates the identification of regulations that need to be changed or eliminated.

(b) Deliberative Democracy Approach to Citizen Engagement

A challenge faced by several of Transport Canada's consultation mechanisms, including CARAC, is engaging the general public. While the general public tends to have little interest in technical issues related to transportation, the department is concerned about the public having little opportunity to affect the outcome of a given regulatory proposal.

Concern about engaging the general public is a government-wide issue. The federal government is promoting greater involvement of Canadians in government decision-making through activities frequently referred to as citizen engagement. As the former Clerk of the Privy Council has noted: "The purpose of citizen engagement is not to make citizens feel good, but to produce sounder policies.⁴ If Transport Canada is to develop policies and programs that provide a more balanced reflection of the interests of Canadians, it needs to directly involve citizens in defining the public good and give them the information they need to develop informed opinions.⁵

One approach being pursued by Transport Canada is the "Deliberative Democracy" approach to citizen engagement, as recommended by an internal review completed in 2002. ⁶ Deliberative democracy, also referred to as deliberative polling, involves recruiting a representative sample of the general public, polling them to determine their initial views, then bringing them together at a single location. Participants receive balanced information about an issue, question the experts, and engage in group discussions before they are polled again. In this way, government obtains the views of well-informed members of the public on a given issue.

Deliberative democracy builds on and improves other citizen engagement approaches. Like the public opinion poll, it selects participants who are representative of the entire population; like the policy conference, it draws on the views of credible experts; like the policy roundtable, it fosters discussion and clarification, with the potential for recommending specific courses of action.

This approach to citizen engagement is being applied on a pilot basis, to the issue of how to address the (safety) consequences related to the emerging use by motorists of in-vehicle telematics applications ⁷. Transport Canada is concerned, based on a substantial and mounting body of evidence, that in-vehicle telematics devices are a threat to road safety because they increase driver distraction and cause an increase in distraction-related crashes.⁸

In keeping with this approach, a telephone survey with a random sample of approximately 1500 Canadians was completed in May of 2003, with the results to be used as a baseline for assessing the impact of the informed debate on the opinions of the participants. During the summer of 2003, professionally facilitated focus group sessions were conducted in different locations across Canada⁹. The participants were a selected balanced representation of the Canadian public. They were provided in advance of the sessions with information materials. A Transport Canada expert also attended each session to answer any unanticipated questions of a factual or technical nature posed by participants. A workshop will be held in October 2003 to present and discuss the results of this work with stakeholders.

Transport Canada expects this project to provide not only sound policy guidance and insight into the selection of the correct policy instrument, but also valuable information that can be used to evaluate the benefits, shortcomings, and future viability/applicability of this approach to engaging the public.

The use of a deliberative democracy approach in this context is an example of regulating smarter, because it:

• is broad-based and inclusive - a wide array of stakeholders, including the general public will participate;
• encourages early involvement of stakeholders (starting at the policy deliberations;
• provides a forum for the consideration of various policy instruments and the airing of concerns and disputes (thereby reducing opposition to the policy instruments which are eventually selected); and,
• promotes understanding and cooperation between stakeholders with various and sometimes divergent interests.

2. Wide Array of Harmonization Initiatives:

Transport Canada has vast experience with harmonization efforts, both national and international. Harmonization in this context means, efforts aimed at achieving mutual recognition, agreement, conformity or accordance with respect to standards and regulatory requirements. Harmonization efforts and initiatives are critical to achieving the department's mandate in an environment where on the one hand, roles and responsibilities are increasingly dispersed (shifting and shared responsibilities) while on the other hand, the actions of the various players are increasingly interconnected. Increasingly and irrespective of the context (domestic, North American and international), the department must work collaboratively with other departments, levels of government and other countries.

Of growing influence areorganizations, which bring the key "players" to the table to discuss issues around a particular transportation sector or issue. Some transportation examples are: the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on Transportation of Dangerous Goods, the United Nations ECE World Forum on Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Land Transport Standards Subcommittee, and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.

Making effective use of the forums provided by these organizations is an essential component of the department's harmonization efforts. The other component is designing or selecting programs and policy instruments that promote harmonization.

For the purposes of this document, three examples will be outlined in detail:

1. domestic: use of federal/provincial/territorial forums to address multi-jurisdictional issues - road issues
2. North American: use of NAFTA subcommittees and working groups to develop North American standards - transportation of dangerous goods
3. International: participation in an international program supported by bilateral memoranda of understanding - marine port state control

(a) Domestic - use of federal/provincial/territorial councils

In Canada responsibility for transportation is quite complex and is based on the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution Act. The result is that Transport Canada has different powers and responsibilities in relation to each transportation sector (road, rail, marine and aviation). This complex web of transportation responsibilities has necessitated working collaboratively with the other departments, other levels of government and organizations that facilitate collaboration.

For example, the department is a member of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). CCMTA is a non-profit organization that comprises representatives of the provincial, territorial and federal governments who participate on the organization's Board of Directors (the Board) and Standing Committees. CCMTA also has over 364 associate members from Canada and the United States representing national and provincial associations, individual companies, law enforcement, health and safety organizations, government departments and educational organizations. These associate members participate on ad hoc working groups and task forces, where standards and proposed regulations are discussed and developed.

CCMTA is "the official organization in Canada for all matters dealing with the administration, regulation and control of motor vehicle transportation and highway safety"¹⁰. Through a collective consultative process, the CCMTA makes decisions on administration and operational matters dealing with licensing, registration and the control of motor vehicle transportation and highway safety. The CCMTA Board reports to the Councils of Deputy Ministers and Ministers of Transportation and Highway Safety.

A key aspect of the work of the CCMTA is the pursuit of national consistency in motor carrier regulation via the National Safety Code (NSC) for motor carrier safety, a comprehensive code of performance standards for the safe operation of commercial vehicles. These are jointly developed by the provincial and federal jurisdictions, and administered and enforced by the provinces and territories. These standards address key safety aspects of commercial vehicle operations, including hours of service, load securement, maintenance, safety ratings, as well as other areas affecting road safety.

The department uses the CCMTA as a forum for discussing ideas and issues and for receiving feedback and garnering support for policy and regulatory proposals. While working with the CCMTA can be time-consuming and slow, steady progress is being made in some complex areas. For instance proposed federal regulations dealing with hours of service are patterned after an applicable National Safety Code standard developed through the CCMTA. ¹¹ The changes reflected in these regulations are similar to changes being initiated by provinces for intra-provincial transportation.

The department's participation in the CCMTA is an example of regulating smarter because:

• representation is broad based and inclusive: all the key players with road responsibilities are brought together making it an appropriate forum for addressing cross-jurisdictional issues;

• the mechanism is effective in advancing harmonization in the road sector - concrete products have been collaboratively developed (standards) and adopted by the various jurisdictions; and,

• there is a clear recognition of the changing role of the department - the development of standards is no longer the sole responsibility of Transport Canada; rather the department can be one of several parties involved in their collaborative development through an outside organization.

(b) North American - Use of NAFTA working groups & subcommittees

Canada, Mexico and the United States are tied together economically as well as geographically. Within NAFTA there is a combined GDP of over 11 trillion U.S. dollars.¹². Trade continues to grow among NAFTA countries, with an important role played by trans-border commercial transportation - especially land transportation. The challenge is to create a transportation environment that fosters trade (e.g. the efficient cross-border flow of goods) while meeting safety, security and environmental requirements. This involves trying to harmonize regulatory requirements, where appropriate, among the almost 100 jurisdictions within the 3 NAFTA countries.

Transport Canada participates in several NAFTA related committees and working groups, including the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS), created by NAFTA to address the development of more compatible standards related to truck, bus & rail operations and the transport of hazardous materials among the United States, Mexico and Canada. While reaching compatibility in some areas continues to be a difficult task, the work of the LTSS is yielding promising outputs. For example, the working group dealing with dangerous goods and hazardous materials (LTSS 5) has undertaken the development of a North American model standard on the transportation of dangerous goods. The development and ongoing maintenance of this model standard will provide Transport Canada with a forum for informal discussion of initiatives with its counterpart regulatory bodies while ideas are at a formative stage. Once developed, the model standard will serve as the target for national regulations on the transport of dangerous goods in each respective country.

The LTSS 5 work complements international level efforts dealing with the transportation of dangerous goods. It addresses subject areas where the United Nations (UN) recommendations on the transportation of dangerous goods are silent but which are important for land transport on this continent. As an aside, Canada's recently amended "Clear Language" Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations are harmonized with the UN recommendations.

The department's participation in NAFTA's LTSS is an example of regulating smarter because it:

• reflects Transport Canada's partnership approach to the attainment of its mandate;
• makes use of an existing body to jointly develop an agreed-upon standard that will further the interests of the Canadian public (e.g. improve safety while making progress toward a seamless system, thereby facilitating trade); and,
• reduces the possibility of costly national retrofits down the road since everyone is at the table for initial deliberations.

(c) International - Participation in Port State Control Programs

Effective port state control is an integral part of Transport Canada's Marine Safety Program, which is responsible for all port state control activities within Canada. Canada works with other countries to ensure that foreign flag vessels entering their waters are in compliance with strict safety and anti-pollution standards established by various major international marine conventions. These joint efforts, known as port state control programs, are aimed at detecting substandard shipping and minimizing the threat that it poses to life, property and the marine environment. Port state control programs are regional in nature: several countries which share common waters work together under regional systems established by a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

The principal elements of a port state control program include: criteria for states wishing to participate in the process; inspection of a minimum percentage of vessels entering MOU ports; establishment of standardized inspection, detention and reporting procedures; development of a computerized ship inspection database; harmonized training procedures for inspectors; and regular publication of inspection and detention statistics within the region.

Canada is signatory to two MOUs on port state control: the Paris MOU (comprising 19 European countries and Canada) and the Tokyo MOU (comprising 18 Asia/Pacific countries and Canada). Beginning as a co-operating (associate) member of the Paris MOU in 1988, Canada became a full member in May of 1994. Canada was one of the founding members of the Tokyo MOU and has been a member since its inception in December of 1993.

Transport Canada is working on the harmonization of port state control regimes within the Paris and Tokyo MOUs and through a declaration on port State control signed between Canada, the United States and Mexico in June of 2001. Canada, with shores on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, is leading further harmonization initiatives with the hope of eventually having standardized global port state control programs.

The participation by the department in these is international programs is an example of regulating smarter because:

• it is reflective of Transport Canada's commitment to work collaboratively with its partners to advance the safety, environmental, and economic viability of the transportation system;

• it takes advantage of the Canadian strategic and geographic position to advance the safety of international shipping (e.g. Canada plays the role of an international best practices broker/consultant); and,

• the proactive role played by the Department will result in more stringent, harmonized safety standards on a global scale.

3. Accountability Models:

How Transport Canada achieves the economic and social (safety, security and environmental) goals reflected in its mission has changed, in light of the department's evolving role from being an owner-operator of major portions of the transportation system, to one of policy and regulatory "oversight". The last 15 years were years of enormous change with a dramatic reduction in direct "hands on" involvement of the department. Critical to ensuring that Canadians continued to enjoy one of the safest and most secure transportation systems in the world, was the designing of sound accountability frameworks supporting the changing roles and responsibilities. For instance, divestiture and devolution have been carried out primarily in the context of legislatively based accountability frameworks. The responsibilities of the regulator and the devolved entity (e.g. airport or port authority) or not for profit service provider (e.g. Nav Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority) are set out in legislation.

New accountability frameworks are a key feature of the evolving relationship between Transport Canada as a regulator and all other transportation service and equipment providers regulated by federal transportation legislation. Primary responsibility for operating in a safe and secure manner lies with these regulatees. They are responsible for day-to-day implementation of safety measures and for demonstrating achievement of the required levels of safety. The regulator provides the overarching framework, which includes legislation, regulation and programs (e.g. education, audit, inspection, enforcement, etc.).

The most common accountability framework being adopted by Transport Canada is requiring regulatees to implement safety management systems (SMS). A safety management system is a formalized framework for integrating safety into day-to-day operations of a given transportation company. It includes: safety goals and performance targets; risk assessments; responsibilities and authorities; rules and procedures; and, monitoring and evaluation processes. Everyone is to be involved in the development of the SMS (employees, their representatives and managers). SMS should be woven into the very fabric of an organization. It is meant to become a part of the culture; the way people do their jobs.

At Transport Canada SMS requirements tend to be legislatively based. Essentially the regulator places in legislation the authority to make regulations requiring the implementation of a safety management system. The content of the regulation, in terms of who will be required to implement SMS and what these systems must include, are worked out in consultation with regulatees. The regulations are performance-based in that the regulatee is given the flexibility to decide how the safety requirements set out in the regulation are to be achieved. Regulatees are encouraged to design safety strategies that suit their individual business and operational needs. The emphasis is on outcomes, not on the process by which this outcome is achieved. The role of the regulator is to facilitate implementation by the regulatees and perform ongoing audits, adhering to the strictest standards of quality assurance.

In the marine sector, SMS were implemented on a worldwide basis in 1998 for almost all tankers, bulk carriers and passenger ships in international trade. In Canada, Safety Management Regulations were enacted in 1998 pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act. In 2002 the requirements were expanded to cover almost all vessels trading internationally. An audit program is in place, with third parties conducting the audits, subject to a departmental monitoring program. An alternate safety management compliance program for smaller passenger vessels has also been implemented. This program better reflects the realities of operating small companies while maintaining and enhancing safety. An audit program is in place and with audits conducted by Transport Canada marine inspectors.

Consideration of SMS in the rail sector arose as part of an extensive review undertaken in 1998 following a number of serious railway accidents. The Final Report recommended that railways be required, by legislation, to establish safety management systems to demonstrate their commitment and capabilities to run their operations safely.¹³ The Railway Safety Act has been amended, Safety Management Regulations are in place and guidance materials prepared by the department are available to railways. An audit program is in place, with departmental railway inspectors performing the audits.

In the aviation sector, academics, leading safety experts and international bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have been advocating that greater attention be paid to managing safety at the organizational level. ICAO approved an international standard to require airports to have safety management systems in place by 2003. The department's Civil Aviation program endorsed SMS in a high-level strategic framework document entitled, Flight 2005 - Raising the Flight Level¹⁴. As part of a comprehensive modernizing of the Aeronautics Act, the department is planning to authorize the making of regulations requiring the implementation of SMS by aviation organizations and the nominating of "accountable executives".¹⁵ These individuals will be responsible for all regulated activities of the organization. Both the proposed changes to the Act, as well as the potential content of SMS regulations have either been presented to, or are under current consideration of, CARAC.

The development and adoption of safety management systems is an example of regulating smarter because:

• it advances a performance based approach to safety and security;

• by clearly setting out roles, authorities and accountabilities, it allows for a changed or reduced "hands on" role for government while ensuring high standards for transportation safety and security;

• it reflects the evolving role of government re: providing policy and regulatory oversight - e.g. providing the "umbrella" framework;

• it recognizes the enhanced role of regulatees and gives them the flexibility to design safety strategies appropriate to their organization and operations; and,

• it promotes and establishes a pervasive safety culture - safety is a shared responsibility.

CONCLUSION

While the examples highlighted in this paper represent but a fraction of Transport Canada's regulatory activity, they nonetheless reflect the general direction that the department is taking to ensure that it can continue to fulfill its safety, economic, and environmental responsibilities in a rapidly evolving environment. These innovative consultation mechanisms, wide array of harmonization initiatives, and accountability frameworks are key areas in which the department is modernizing its approach to regulating.

Regulating smarter in Transport Canada is an evolutionary endeavor. While much good work has been done to improve our system of regulatory governance, there will always be more to do, and we will continually need to build on initiatives such as those that have been highlighted in this paper. The important work of the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation will provide a positive impetus to this continuing effort.

¹ For the entire text, please see section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act.

² Vision and Balance: Report of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel (June 2001)

³] Transport Canada Regulatory Process Review(Consulting and Audit Canada - March 2000)

⁴ Notes from an address by Jocelyne Bourgon to the ADM Forum, "The Changing Paradigm of Governance: Are we Willing and Able to Exercise Power Differently?", October 29, 1997.

⁵ Transport Canada and Natural Resources Canada Senior Management Development Course, "Challenging the Future with Vision: Citizen Engagement", October 7, 1999.

⁶ Evaluation of External Consultation Mechanism: Safety and Security Group (Transport Canada - Evaluation Services - July 2002).

⁷ "In-Vehicle Telematics" refers to devices incorporating wireless communications technologies in order to provide information services, vehicle automation and other functions (e.g. navigation, adaptive cruise control and Internet access, cell phones).

⁸A more traditional consultation is taking place in parallel to this deliberative democracy pilot project. A discussion document on driver distraction from telematics was published in the Canada Gazette Part I (June 14, 2003). The document is available at: http://canadagazetteducanada.gc.ca/partI/2003/20030614/pdf/g1-13724.pdf

⁹Montreal, Toronto and Calgary, with the Montreal session held in French

¹⁰ CCMTA website introduction: www.cccmta.ca/english/index.html

¹¹ Proposed regulatory text and RIAS available at http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2003/20030215/html/regle1-e.html

¹² For the year 2000.

¹³ Review of the Railway Safety Act: Final Report (January 1998)

¹⁴ Flight 2005 - Raising the Flight Level (December, 1999) For more information please refer to www.tc.gc.ca/aviation

¹⁵ Discussion Paper on Proposal to Amend the Aeronautics Act (June 2000) and Proposals to Amend the Aeronautics Act - as revised in response to consultation comments (May 2001)