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 7 of 63)


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:   P.E.I.),
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1913

Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a word to correct one or two misapprehensions which appear to exist in the minds of some hon. gentlemen with regard to the facts in connection with the Songhees reserve and the present condition of the Indians. Hon. gentlemen opposite are possibly too readily disposed to believe statements which have appeared in the newspapers and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has made statements with a desire possibly to shield his leaders from the effect of the

words of a telegram which has been referred to in this debate this afternoon. The hon. member for South Wellington no doubt thought he was helping his leader in so far as the telegram addressed to Sir Richard McBride was concerned, in which that gentleman was told to make any bargain he liked, when he said that the Government knew all the time what the price of the Songhees reserve was. The hon. gentleman is absolutely mistaken. This Government had sent agents to the Indians and the local Government had been endeavouring for years to get a figure from the Indians. Until that bargain had been struck by the local Government the Dominion Government had no idea what the Indians would take for their land and neither had anyone else.

I want to ease the conscience of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as to the condition of these Indians and I do not think it is fair to them that the statements that have been made in this House should go unchallenged. I am afraid that my hon. friend the acting Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crothers) was a little bit too anxious to combat that resolution and for the sake of combatting it, he accepted the statement as a fact that these Indians are existing in a state of depravity and debauchery.

Topic:   K1TSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1913

Mr. BARNARD:

Very much.

Topic:   K1TSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1913

Mr. BARNARD:

Is the hon. gentleman making that statement with a knowledge of the facts?

Topic:   K1TSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1913

Mr. BARNARD:

It is possible that out of one hundred and twenty-five some of them may be in a bad condition but I say without any fear of contradiction that the idea that is sought to be conveyed by that newspaper article is absolutely false. Any man who knew the condition of these Indians prior to the day of surrender and who knows the condition of these Indians today will say that the surrender was the very best thing that could have happened. Before the surrender these people lived in shacks of the meanest description. To-day, on their new reservation, they have then-own individual houses. Before, several families were all hived together in a lodge while now they have their own homes their own horses, orchards, and vehicles and they seem to have an exceedingly prosperous settlement. Any man passing through the country would not be able to pick out this district as an Indian reservation.

Topic:   K1TSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.
Full View Permalink