What Is Canada's National Transportation Policy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994, Transport Canada outlined a new vision for transportation in Canada.Regulation and subsidies would be phased out in favour of a more market-oriented approach based on deregulation, privatization, and commercialization.Have distortions been eliminated in the freight marketplace?Not entirely.For example, Transport Canada has stated that the Government will fund operating costs of the Seaway when traffic volumes are low, as well as major Seaway asset rehabilitation.Trucking is subsidized through publicly funded infrastructure.Even if there were a level playing field in terms of direct government support, the marketplace currently does not price the full external costs of accidents and pollution.This lack of full cost-accounting favours the modes with the highest external cost.An optimum freight transport system would minimize total costs, including external costs, by reflecting the total costs in market prices.In reality, this will be tempered by competitive conditions of the continental market.Canada needs a comparative analysis and harmonization of U.S. and Canadian transport legislation, regulation, policies, taxes, and subsidies.It needs to work together with our NAFTA partners for a continental transportation policy based on a level playing field for each mode among the countries and within each country. Historical DevelopmentGovernments played an important role in developing Canada s infrastructure, starting with the Lachine Canal in the early 19th century.Governments provided loans, loan guarantees, subsidies, grants, and franchises or charters to encourage the development of private railways.Governments were also directly involved in building and operating road, marine, and airport infrastructure and the marine and air navigation support systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".