Transportation

                                             Canadian National Railway Company 
                                                   2018  Annual Information Form

Aboriginal Claims   Page 21/37
The Company believes that it possess unrestricted and absolute title to its lands. However, in recent years, some Aboriginal communities have claimed to have a continuing legal interest in certain lands. They allege this interest prohibits the Company from disposing of the lands when they are no longer needed for railway purposes, except by allowing them to revert to the Crown for the benefit of the Aboriginals.
This issue is one which will ultimately be decided by the courts; however, regardless of the outcome, there is no perceived adverse material adverse effect, as the right of the Company to continue to occupy and operate over such lands is not being called into question.
As the issues surrounding Aboriginal claims are complex and involve not only private interest but fiduciary and other obligations of the Crown in the right of Canada, CN has agreed not to sell or otherwise dispose of land which is not essential to its rail operations and which is located in, or adjacent to an Aboriginal reserve....
(Note: Land, bridges and tunnels that are no longer needed for railway purposes should be returned to the Crown, that includes all Canadians.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
House of Commons Debates  Ottawa   November 23, 1981.
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River, Alberta) Progressive Conservative.
     "Madam Speaker, since there are millions of tons of coal in the East Coulee area, and Allied Chemicals Canada has a plant on the route, the decision (to decommission the route) is difficult to understand. I would point out to the minister that in 1929 an act was passed by the Parliament of Canada under which Parliament confirmed an agreement between the CPR and the CNR, dated June 29, to operate this line "in perpetuity". The statute has never been repealed, it is still on the law books."

House of Commons Debates  Ottawa  October 5, 1989.
Mr. Russell Gregoire MacLennan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Nova Scotia.)
     "Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For those Canadians who lost rail passenger service yesterday the prime concern now is: Is rail abandonment going to follow, especially since the president of CN was named the president of Via Rail and given the job of recommending what routes should be cut thereby enhancing his own agreement for rail abandonment?
Will the Prime Minister, knowing the importance of rail freight service in eastern Nova Scotia particularily Cape Breton, unequivocally assure the residents of eastern Nova Scotia that the rail line will not be abandoned?"

Mr. David Charles Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond, Nova Scotia.) Liberal.
     "...Yesterday's announcement on Via Rail is a plan that will undoubtedly separate Canadians geographically, economically and socially. I want to ask the minister whether or not he is aware that the termination of the Halifax-Sydney route will negatively affect the tourism industry, that it will deny Cape Bretoners the opportunity of good health care in Halifax, and that it will prevent students from affordable, reasonable transportation costs to pursue their education. Will the minister explain to the Canadians in that region why the government persists in treating this area of the country as second-class citizens?"