George Henry BARNARD

BARNARD, The Hon. George Henry, K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Victoria City (British Columbia)
Birth Date
October 9, 1868
Deceased Date
January 13, 1954
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Henry_Barnard
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=70751f3f-93c4-498e-954c-d7a8df6a4c93&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  Victoria City (British Columbia)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Victoria City (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 6 of 63)


March 2, 1914

Mr. BARNARD:

I am prepared to accept the hon. gentleman's statement; but at any rate he radically differed from the views expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and it is with the latter that I find myself in accord.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ASIATIC IMMIGRATION.
Full View Permalink

March 2, 1914

Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria):

I am quite content, like my hon. friend the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), to give every credit to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) for the tone of their remarks this afternoon on this very important subject. It is true that so far as they are concerned the debate was conducted upon a high plane, but I cannot help thinking that they know .that partisanship would come afterwards,

10 p.m. because they must have known that the hon. member for Moose, jaw was to follow. The hon. member for Moosejaw has done me the honour to give me some particular attention. I am sorry he is going out, as I wished to say a few words with regard to his remarks. For the third time he has done me the honour of referring on the floor of this House to a certain telegram for which he apparently still holds me responsible. His remarks are neither very original nor very clever.

but I may remind him that very much cleverer and very much greater men than he is have come into my own constituency and have discussed this matter. In fact, when the right hon. gentleman who is his leader was in that constituency in the year 1910 he was able to lay aside the great thoughts which must have occupied his mind and come down to parochial politics and say a few words about that telegram. In addition to that my opponent in that constituency, who is the owner of a daily Liberal paper-very Liberal, almost Grit-featured this particular matter daily throughout the campaign. The net result of all the cannonading that went on was that my majority was increased from 13 to 484. Having stood, as we have, the onslaught of the great guns of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Moosejaw must pardon me if I do not get very much excited at the noise that a political popgun like himself sometimes makes. The hon. gentleman twits the members from British Columbia with regard to the action they took on the debate on the Japanese treaty when that matter was up for discussion last year. I am not now going into an argument on that question. I was not in Ottawa at the time of the debate, but I have read it very carefully since, and all that I wish to say is that I am thoroughly satisfied with the interpretation and construction put upon that treaty by the leader of the Government, and I do not think it is necessary to refer further to that to-night.

With regard to the speeches of the hon. member foT Edmonton and the hon. member for Rouville this afternoon, there was a very great difference between them. I do not wish to misconstrue the language of the hon. member for Rouville, but I must say that the impression he left on my mind was that the Chinese were good and would make good citizens because they were good domestic servants, and because we

wanted to trade with them; that

the Japanese were good, and would make good citizens because they had a very excellent state of civilization; and that the Hindus should be allowed to come in because they were British subjects. I may have misinterpreted the hon. gentleman's remarks, but that is the impression he left on my mind.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ASIATIC IMMIGRATION.
Full View Permalink

March 2, 1914

Mr. BARNARD:

All I can say to my

hon. friend is that I think he had better very carefully revise ' Hansard ' to-morrow morning. I am not going to-night into the question of the merits of Hindu immigration., That ground has been very fully covered by the hon. member for Vancouver and, at any rate, I do not think that it is a matter which admits of any argument from the point of view of British Columbia. One has only to look at the disturbances in Natal to-day, or go to the southern states of America, to see what a racial question means, where you have a large body of citizens in a country who cannot assimilate with the majority. The people of British Columbia will not stand for Hindu immigration. It may just as well be understood, and in no uncertain terms, for as I know these people there-and I say it in all seriousness-I firmly believe that in resisting immigration of that kind they will go to lengths which it is very undesirable indeed should be discussed here.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ASIATIC IMMIGRATION.
Full View Permalink

February 16, 1914

Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.):

Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from a province Which has a divorce court of its own, I desire to say that I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion which has taken place this evening. I was particularly interested in listening to the reply of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) to the case as stated by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), although it did appear to me that the speech of the

hon. member for Rouville was not altogether a reply to that of the hon. member for East Hastings. The hon. member for Rouville devoted his attention to an argument against the principles of divorce as a whole. The hon. member for East Hastings, on the other hand, commenced with the premise that the condition is with us, that we have divorce. While I can appreciate the argument of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that there is no law in some of the eastern provinces of this Dominion providing for divorce, and that if we give the machinery to them there will be no law for them to enforce, yet, at the same time, the fact remains that the condition is that any man who can afford to and who comes to this Parliament and can produce evidence of a certain state of facts, can get his divorce. It is somewhat difficult to drive into the head of a man who is applying for a divorce, and who is put to what seems an extraordinary and unnecessary expense, the difference between the fact of a court having jurisdiction and there being no law for it to enforce.

In regard to the law as it is in force in British Columbia, I would like to say that, in my opinion, it works extremely well. It has been in force since Confederation. It has not been abused. The sanctity of the marriage state is as highly regarded there as in any other part of Canada, and I think that so long as we have as good reason as we have in Canada to be proud of the Bench we need have no fears thit such a law would be abused. I can quite realize that this is a question on which members of this House should have a very serious difference of opinion. I think that, while I am in sympathy with the idea which my hon. friend from East Hastings wishes to carry into effect, the best way probably would be to have a committee of this House appointed that would go into this question of procedure and the desirability of granting a substantive divorce law so that the House can then deal with the matter in proper form and have the whole of the evidence before it. I would, therefore, beg to move in amendment the following:

That all the words after the word 'that' to the end of the question he omitted, and the following substituted therefor:

A committee of seven members to be appointed to inquire Into the existing procedure under which divorces are granted, and to report whether any and what more satisfactory procedure should be provided in such cases.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   DIVORCE REFORM.
Full View Permalink

May 15, 1913

Mr. BARNARD:

I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Topic:   NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE.
Full View Permalink