Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the concept that drives all of the motions which are before the House in this grouping, namely that the act should apply to main lines equally as it applies to branch lines. The abandonment of a main line would fall under the same requirements of the abandonment of a branch line.
This was a shortcoming in the previous act. Had the previous act recognized that railways may someday want to abandon main lines, the motion today by my hon. friend from Saint John would not have been required because no one foresaw that the main line to her region was in fact abandoned. No one had taken that into account and the act ignored the problem.
I am from the province of Saskatchewan which is crossed by four main line railways. The farmers and shippers who use those main lines would like to have some assurance that the railways could not just willy-nilly abandon those main lines, that they would have to submit to some sort of process.
These rather detailed amendments do in fact outline a process which would require those railways before abandonment to show their costs and their losses. They would have to make a case for why they think they have to abandon these lines. Those numbers would be made public so that the shippers and users of those lines would have access to them in trying to make their case for maintaining the line to the agency which will make the final decision.
With regard to the one or two amendments that refer to provinces and provincial governments being involved, you are darn right they have to be involved, Mr. Speaker. They are the ones who are going to have to pick up the slack and pay for the cost of the highways and the road system to take the place of the abandoned railway.
I make no apologies for having those requirements in there. I think the concept of railways wanting to abandon main lines is for some reason in a state of denial in this place, in spite of the fact that pieces of main lines have been abandoned and are being considered for abandonment and resale. I hope most members of the House will agree that those requirements of railways for abandoning stretches of a main line should be precisely the same requirements as we put them through when they abandon a branch line.
Just because the government members and the Department of Transport are in a state of denial saying that railways will never abandon main lines does not mean it should not be in the bill. I note the case by the member for Saint John where a main line was abandoned. There have been proposals to abandon slices of main line in northern Ontario. There are proposals to abandon here and there. We have service across the prairie region for collecting grain of four main lines.
When we look at any of the maps into the future, most of the railways are considering having to abandon some of those main lines. If they are going to be doing that, then the restrictions on abandoning a main line should at least be equivalent to the restrictions applied to abandoning a branch line.
I cannot see why some of the members would go into a state of denial by simply putting forward the same requirements for abandoning a piece of main line as we already have accepted for a number of years should apply to abandoning a branch line.
I would hope that those members who have already stated their position would reconsider. They are doing the communities served by what are known now as main lines a disservice if Bill C-14, the bill that will guide the transportation future of this country does not contain such clauses.
