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.
Subtopic: ASIATIC IMMIGRATION.