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:

You have asked the

question. There is no use in pursuing it.

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

June 25, 1924

Mr. PORTER:

The hon. member for Dorchester and one or two others have advanced what they term the human argument. I am not objecting to that, but the argument does not apply in a case of this kind. To put it in a word, they say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) did nothing more than thousands of others would have done in the same circumstances. Do hon. members realize that this parliament is not the keeper of the conscience or the honour of the thousands of other men who are out in the country ? There is only one Minister of Labour here and the conduct of that minister in so far as it touches the honour of parliament is in the keeping of this House. Parliament must therefore investigate matters of this kind, and when a minister or a member of parliament transgresses the rules, or sullies the traditions of parliament, or impinges upon its honour, we must take cognizance of such conduct. To use the argument that thousands or tens of thousands of others would have done the same thing does not make one bit of difference to the case as it stands.

Now, just one word in reference to what the Prime Minister has said touching the precedent he cited in the case that occurred in 1891. He did not state the name of the case but I think I know it; I think he had reference to the Rykert case.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. PORTER:

The Prime Minister knows better than I can tell him that the power of this House, the right of this House, to inquire into any charge affecting the honour of any member of parliament as such or of any minister of the cabinet is not a matter that can be delegated to a royal commission or a judge of the supreme court. It is a matter within the keeping of this House. It is a matter of the honour and conscience of the members of this House, and of nobody else. For that reason a royal commission would not be accepted, and the House agreed with that position. Instead of insisting that it go to a royal commission, the House granted an investigation by the committee on Privileges and Elections, and here we are with the facts as I have endeavoured to prove this afternoon.

Now my right hon. friend addressed this further argument to the House: Is this

House upon the evidence that has been submitted going to turn this man out of public life, is it going to punish him in that way? And he repeated the question. It is not for me, it is for the House to say whether it will turn him out of public life or what other punishment it will inflict. It may be that the House will be of opinion that some other punishment should be meted out, but it is up to the House to declare what punishment the minister deserves at its hands for

an offence that he has been proven guilty of; nothing more, nothing less. So far as I am personally concerned, as I have stated over and over again, I have tried to conduct the case fairly against the Minister of Labour. But as to this, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) differs very materially with the chairman of the committee (Mr. Archambault) who this afternoon was so loud in his praise of the manner in which I had conducted the inquiry all the way through.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink