Historically, the owner of the railway is the one responsible for maintaining its own network and enabling agricultural producers to cross it. That was mentioned by several witnesses earlier.
I understand this has to be qualified based on whether or not a property is split in two. I have two sub‑questions on that.
Does this distinction, whether or not the land is split in two, still exist? As well, why is it that they are suddenly able to charge agricultural producers for the cost?
Historically, the owner of the railway is the one responsible for maintaining its own network and enabling agricultural producers to cross it. That was mentioned by several witnesses earlier.
I understand this has to be qualified based on whether or not a property is split in two. I have two sub‑questions on that.
Does this distinction, whether or not the land is split in two, still exist? As well, why is it that they are suddenly able to charge agricultural producers for the cost?