That is another question entirely; I will come to that before I sit down. As to that I may say that I have more doubt than I have as to the point that I am arguing now. What I am arguing now is this: unless we vest in the Railway Commission a right of full rejection we cannot vest in them jurisdiction over a general route. It is true that the Act says that if that general route as laid down on the plan called for by subsection 1 is deemed not in the public interest by the commission, they must reject it. For myself, I see no material difference whether the word "may" or the word "shall" is uised. It undoubtedly would be the duty of the commission to reject it if they felt it to be not in the public interest. But they must be vested with that power or we strip the Bill, we emasculate the Bill and fail fundamentally to do What the Bill sets out to do. Under the present circumstances the minister, if he wishes arbitrarily to exercise his power, may, by rejecting the
approval, negative that general location. All that is said to the Railway Board is:
" ,If you. feel that that general location is not in the public interest we give you the right and we make it your duty to , negative that general location. " The hon. member for South Renfrew raised a point as to the overriding of Parliament. Of course, nolbody can override Parliament; no body can get powers except such as we give them. We are no more enabling the Railway Commission to override Parliament by this legislation than we enabled them in the original Bill to override Parliament. In each case we give the Railway Commission certain powers which previously were exercised by Parliament. If in the exercise of those powers they override what otherwise Parliament would have done, then in the present case they also override. But it is not an overriding; it is an exercise of functions given by Parliament. All that we have to decide is whether or not it is well to extend what they have power to do.