The amendment simply says that if the railway line is not used for transportation purposes, it must be returned to the community. I certainly understand Mr. Bell's point of view and I recognize that with the sub-amendment, the community organization's intervention could be subject to the approval of any affected municipalities.
However, there is also the reverse problem. In some communities, railway lines are not used for urban transit. One example would be Arbutus Corridor, in Vancouver: it is not used for urban transit. There is no transfer. Community groups do not use it. In fact, communities are not authorized to use that railway line. It is used neither for transportation, urban transit, or recreation. That's the problem.
That is a real shortcoming in this bill. That is the reason why we are proposing this amendment. If someone wanted to move a sub-amendment that would allow us to better define it, I would be perfectly in agreement with that.
However, based on the principle that underlies the amendment, the communities, with the approval of municipalities, can acquire the railway line precisely because no one else is using it. If it is not used for public transit, it can be used for something else, and that usage must be in the interest of the communities.