Mr. Speaker, I will quickly touch on some of these grouped motions so it is very clear to everyone exactly where we stand.
The hon. member for Mackenzie put a substantial number of amendments together. While we rejected the majority of them, we have carefully examined each one and will support those that are supportable. This is the same in the case of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments.
We do not support Motion No. 4. This motion might be an aid in trying to prevent government patronage. We certainly are not in favour of supporting government patronage but unfortunately this motion would create such a stalemate that there would be a total lack of consensus within the CPA, which would basically grind it to a halt.
We are also opposed to Motion No. 9. It is very vague and cumbersome in how the consultation would take place and would bog the entire thing down.
We also oppose Motions Nos. 14 and 15. They are not necessary amendments.
We support Motion No. 17 because it is very compatible with the Reform Party's constitutional proposals. These are changes that should take place on a much broader basis and certainly are within the scope of Bill C-17.
Motion No. 27 deals primarily with running rights. As I explained, under the old problem of rail line abandonment, the railroads had to prove financial hardship. Therefore before they applied for abandonment they ensured they had financial hardship. This was contrary to the creation of short lines, an objective which we all wanted to see accomplished.
If it is not feasible for a main federal railway to continue to operate a line we want to try to ensure whenever possible that a
short line operation would take it over and continue rail services to the various communities on that line. If running rights are given to these short lines, they would take the customers of the former main line operator.
The main line operator that sold this line could then be forced to carry the goods of its formers clients over its rail line. These new short line operators could connect with the main company's competitors and it would simply revert to the old process. The main line operator would demarket and reduce the maintenance on these lines so that they would be shut down rather than having a new short line operator running over its tracks, carrying its former client's goods to its competitors, interfering with its operating schedules and many other problems.
I consulted with many of the short line operators in this country. With the exception of one I did not find any other operator that was interested in having these running rights. Therefore, we will not be supporting this motion.
We support Motion No. 68. It clarifies jurisdiction.
We oppose Motions Nos. 72 and 73 because certain things should be within federal jurisdiction, notwithstanding that we would like to see a lot of things taken from the federal government and given back to the provinces where they belong. The items covered under these two sections are not in that category. We should not be involving the provinces in something which is the clear responsibility of the federal government.