Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):
Mr. Speaker, if we are precluded from giving quotations from a former debate, I should just like to add this. My only conclusion was that instead of remarks of that kind, it would have been better for any party to have placed before this House the policy on which they were asking support. Had that policy been placed before us, we might have had some opportunity of knowing what we were being asked to support. But, Sir, in connection with this
matter perhaps I may be permitted to quote something that was not said in this House. In another way we may get an idea how things are sometimes done in Tory circles. I had the pleasure, not so very long ago, of running an election in Saskatoon, in the course of which my Conservative opponent, Mr. F. R. MacMillan, discussed the Hudson Bay railway. Before that time he had said:
I am not saying that the Hudson Bay railway is not feasible but it is silly nonsense to proceed with that project when the country is already staggering under a heavy load of debt. Even 'to prove the feasibility of the Hudson bay Toute will involve the expenditure of, not ten millions of dollars, but more probably fifty millions. The fact, in my opinion, is that Winnipeg is boosting the On-to-tlie-Bay movement because if equalization of rates becomes effective, Winnipeg would then occupy the peak position in freight rates for the country, the position of Saskatoon today. In other words, the On-to-the-Bay cry is a red herring introduced by Winnipeg to draw attention away from the remedy that is the obvious one to apply at the present time.
The Hudson Bay railway was conceived as a political football, and has been carried along as such ever since, and will continue on as long as the people permit thetn-selves to be hoodwinked. .
Is that the policy of my hon. friends of the Conservative party to-day?