Edward Guss PORTER

PORTER, Edward Guss, K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Hastings West (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 28, 1859
Deceased Date
December 23, 1929
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Guss_Porter
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=185cfc9f-0de6-4492-8cdf-b36fb5308b50&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

January 15, 1902 - September 29, 1904
CON
  Hastings West (Ontario)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
CON
  Hastings West (Ontario)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  Hastings West (Ontario)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Hastings West (Ontario)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Hastings West (Ontario)
December 6, 1921 - June 27, 1924
CON
  Hastings West (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 90)


May 22, 1939

Mr. POAATER:

I do not know that we can do any better than we have done. We have sent these cases to Doctor Penfield and to the Toronto psychiatry institute. I am not a medical man, as my hon. friend knows, but I do not think there ever has been a case where we have refused anything like a reasonable demand for treatment either in our hospitals by our own people or by experts outside. But I am sure my hon. friend knows of the very large number of people who just happen to have that mental slant, who are Derfectly normal in every other way but who have a fixed idea, a persecution complex, that they are not getting that to which they are entitled from the pension department, from the government, or from society. It is not only soldiers-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND RESOURCES
Full View Permalink

June 27, 1924

Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings):

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK PRIVILEGE-RESIGNATION OF MR. E. GUSS PORTER
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. PORTER:

Mr. Clarkson's letter was

written on the 7th of May and t'he Minister of Labour answered it on the 14th of May, and on that very day it came out before Mr. Justice McKeown in the Home Bank inquiry that the hon. Minister of Labour had withdrawn his money from the bank. He paid it back after the fact had been discovered in an inquiry. And then he endeavours to say, "Oh, out of consideration and compassion for the Home Bank depositors I am doing this." But that is not all. He did not pretend when he was charged upon the floor of the House -which quite possibly might have ended the whole matter-to set up a defence that any reasonable man would say was a defence. He did not say then "Why the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon), told me six days before I withdrew the money about the apparent failure of the bank, and I drew the money out six days after, in consequence of what the Deputy Speaker told me." He gave no excuse or reason of that kind. It was absolutely

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank

withheld from this parliament and from the public. If it is a defence now, why was it not stated at that time? What would any man who desired that the public and this parliament should know the full facts do under these circumstances? Hide it? Hide his light under a bushel? Or would he come out and say, "Here are the facts; if 1 have done wrong I regret it." But no, he kept the facts away from parliament. Then at iast parliament grants the inquiry and he is brought before the committee. He comes before the committee. True he was not bound to appear there, but he did appear. And what did he do? When parliament had forced the matter to an inquiry and the facts were bound to be discovered, he sat there day after day while the inquiry was going on and evidence was being adduced before that committee, and it was only when he must have felt the noose tightening round his neck, metaphorically speaking, and when he thought discretion was the better part of valour, when he thought it was better to come from under cover, he said to me through his counsel, "I would like to make a statement to the commission." He has had the fairest of fair treatment from me, so far as this inquiry is concerned. When he made that proposition I said "Yes, come on and make your statement;" and he did so. He made a statement I hat covers about half a dozen lines in the evidence taken before that committee. Did he tell the whole facts then? He came before the committee when the evidence was closing in upon him, when it was getting closer and closer every moment, and he said, "I did draw my money out of the bank, $4,050 on the 15th day of August." That is the statement that he made. Did that statement set forth all the facts we were after? We knew that fact and had proven it, and had the witnesses there prepared to prove every line and word of the statement made before the House on the 22nd of May. No, he does not see fit to answer that statement. He only added to that such facts as were forced from him on crossexamination, as members of this House will see on reference to the evidence. He did, however, add some things there, and he added some things that are very material. Then he having completed his statement at that time -the third attempt at defence-we went on with the evidence. I was not satisfied to let the matter rest there. I knew that all the facts had not come out, and I went on to prove the additional fact-and I did prove it -that when he took the $4,000 out of the Home Bank and deposited it in the Royal

Bank, he deposited it in the name of his secretary, Miss McCool. Why? Another attempt to evade discovery, to hide it away somewhere where it would not be so easily discovered. He felt the importance of this because again he said to the committee: "I should like to come in and make a statement; I should like to clear this up." If it needed clearing up, why did he not clear it up in the first instance? Why did he not tell the whole story, the whole facts? He was again allowed to come into the witness box and to add a fourth edition to the defence that he was trying to make to this charge.

It turned out that when he made the deposit in the Royal Bank he deposited it in the name of his secretary in order that she might draw this money out.

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. PORTER:

I do not want a snap verdict in this case. If any hon. gentleman desires to ask me a question and will be good enough to make a note of it I shall be very pleased to give him an answer, iif I can, when I conclude my speech. The first statement of the minister was that he was going to pay the money on his house. At the investigation before the committee, after witnesses had been subpoenaed to prove the fact, he was obliged to admit that the statement was not wholly true; he intended to pay the money upon the house at some time but did not pay it at that particular period. The time he intended to pay it was sometime about 1st October. That was the statement he made at that time, and that went unchallenged-not a word about it, until it came before this House upon the charge made by me and upon the request made to this House to grant me an inquiry to ascertain what the facts were. When he came before this House and made his statement, what was the attitude of the hon. minister at that time? Was he frank? Was he fair? Did he make a full and honest statement? Let us just examine for a moment and see what he did.

When he came before the House the only excuse, the only possible defence, the only semblance of a defence that he offered was to read two letters and a statemeut that passed between himself and Mr. Clarkson, the liquidator of the Home Bank. One letter showed that the liquidator of the bank had discovered, by conversation and otherwise, that the Minister of Labour had withdrawn his money from the Home Bank under circumstances that required explanation, circumstances that constituted a suspicion of wrongdoing, circumstances that would show the liquidator and did convince the liquidator that the money had been withdrawn illegally and improperly from the bank. As far as the bank's position was concerned, Mr. Clarkson, having discovered these facts, writes him a letter making a demand for a return of the money. Did

the Minister of Labour have any intention of returning the money before that? Now listen to the false and untrue excuse that he gave in that letter. He wrote to Mr. Clarkson stating that he was going to return the money. And why? Not because he thought he was legally liable, but because he would not have any depositor or shareholder of the Home Bank suffer by reason of his action. He had a wonderful amount of compassion and consideration for the widows and orphans who were depositors in the Home Bank when he took the $4,000 out, knowing the bank was going to fail! He did not change his mind when the newspapers came out and charged him with it. He stuck to the money for months after the publication in the papers; he stuck to the money until the matter was brought up on the floor of this House. But when he was charged on the floor of this House, he said, "Oh I will give it back for the sake of the depositors."

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. PORTER:

My hon. friend is quite

right.

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink