Mr. Barnett:

I do not think there is, but we will not go into that at the moment. May I ask another question. The definition section deals with "transport plan". The question which arises is this: How would this legislation apply, if at all, to new communities such as have sprung up in British Columbia and elsewhere which have been referred to as instant towns? I do not know of any served directly by railway. I think of the town of MacKenzie, north of Prince George. There is much talk about creating new satellites to urban areas. I ask the minister to look at clause 6(1) which says, "For the purpose of carrying into effect a transportation plan accepted by the Commission under section 5," certain things shall be done. I understand that section 5 deals with a plan, which would have to be accepted by the commission, which would include both the urban development and transportation plan.

I may be wrong, but as others have observed this bill is complex. If I am correct, and this is the aspect which interests me in relation to the development of new, planned communities, then may I say this. Clause 6(2) (c) empowers the commission, in relation to carrying into effect the transportation plan, to "require a railway company to build a railway line in such location as may be specified by the Commission within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates". That power could be important in relation to proper planning

Relocation of Railway Lines

and direction to a railway company to fit its service for a planned community which is to be an urban area. Can the direction be given before the area has acquired the minimum population of 1,000 but which, once the direction has come into effect, will, for the purposes of the next census, acquire sufficient population to be classed as an urban area? I wonder whether the minister could comment on the implications of the legislation for the kind of situation I am trying to suggest.

Mr. Barnett:

Mr. Chairman, another question occurs to me. According to the minister, Statistics Canada defines

April 25, 1974

an urban area as an incorporated city, town or village with a population of 1,000 or more or an unincorporated place with a population of 1,000 or better. He did not mention any district municipality.

I am sure the minister knows that in the province from which he and I come there are municipalities which are really urban areas, with populations well over 1,000. One such area in my constituency springs to mind immediately, because there is no railway in it, the district municipality of Campbell River, which I suggest has a population of at least 10,000. At one time it was a village; later it was defined by the province as a district municipality. If I heard the minister correctly, the district municipality of Campbell River is to be excluded from the provisions of the bill, even though it may more readily be considered an urban area than, say, the village of Tahsis, on the west coast of my constituency. I mention the village because it is unlikely that a railway will run through it in the near future.

Can the minister comment on what I have said about the definition of an urban area?

Mr. Barnett:

Mr. Chairman, I rise, not to make general remarks, but to ask specific questions about clause 2. I was not in the House when the minister spoke on second reading and possibly he may have touched on the matter I am about to allude to. The definition section of the bill says that "urban area" means "an area and areas adjacent thereto that are classified by Statistics Canada in its most recent census ..." It would help us to understand the bill better if the definition were presented in less technical terms, as not every citizen of Canada reads the publications of Statistics Canada and knows exactly what that organization means by "urban area".

Mr. Barnett:

Mr. Chairman, I specifically stopped my quotation from clause 6 before I came to the matter of rapid transit because this is not the point. I understand that the thrust of this legislation is to try to deal with actions taken in the past which might properly not have been foreseen in their long-term results. I am glad to know the minister is concerned about the planning of new communities.

The question I am raising is what authority of direction there is to a railway company, whether it is the CPR, which my friend from Calgary loves so much, or the CNR, which is the subject of his criticism, to ensure that a railway will be located in accordance with the desire of planners of new communities.

I am no authority on the provisions of the Railway Act or the kinds of powers a railway company can exercise. However, some of us have been hearing about decisions made in the past by a former general manager of the CPR regarding the location of towns. This may have refreshed our memories or put in our minds the kind of authority railways have with regard to putting in their lines.

As I read clause 6, it provides that, under the circumstances prescribed in this bill, specific authority is given to the commission to require a railway company to build a

April 25, 1974

Relocation of Railway Lines

railway line, in effect where the commission says it should. The general thrust of this bill is to provide for a constructive liaison between decisions of a commission and decisions made at a community level.

I raise this point because unless the minister can indicate to the committee that under some other existing authority there is a power of direction to the railway companies that they must co-operate in the development of a new community with regard to the location of lines and so on, this is something that should not be considered. That is, if we are going to prevent mistakes in the future rather than being altogether preoccupied with the mistakes of the past.

Mr. Barnett:

I want to thank the minister. I raised this point deliberately under the definition section in order to relate it to further clauses of the bill. I want time to think about the minister's answer before we come to clause 6.