their methods and both are enemies of economic democracy and therefore of political democracy.
I was surprised how clearly that opinion was confirmed by this group of learned people in their submission to the Gordon commission. First of all they refer to a new type of thinking which seems to have permeated into the ranks of the government and I suspect that the Minister of Finance in particular must have read some of the theories of one modern economist whose name is Schumpeter who has come out flatfooted in recent years to claim that the collectivist idea of capitalism, or in other words monopoly and combine, is a good thing for our economy. He bases his theory on the fact that monopoly becomes a sort of "engine of progress", as he calls it, in that it favours not only innovation but investment. It is claimed that the only way you can accumulate capital is by allowing business to be monopolistic, to become so huge that it can accumulate large reserves of capital and that capital can be used for innovation, expansion and modernization.
This group of professors make reference to that theory and to the position that the state or the government occupies with regard to this situation and I want to quote their words as will be found on page 10 of their submission. This is what they say:
If the state, having created the legal framework within which the great corporation exists, connives at the accumulation of monopoly or oligopoly profits as a means of promoting innovation and accumulation generally, there is a danger that it may create conditions which threaten its own life.
Now is that not exactly what this government has been doing? I am not saying that this government has been doing it on account of the theory of Schumpeter but they may have reached the same conclusions by other channels. The action which this government took last year in creating one of the greatest private monopolies that exists in this country today, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, is an indication that the government is prepared to go along with this new theory, the opposite to the "trust busting" theory which was popular in the United States in the 1930's. They are now prepared to go along with the theory that big business is good business and the bigger the business the better it is for the country and that of course leaves the small business out in the cold.
This group continues their submission with these very important words:
The long-run implications of the idea-
That has reference to the Schumpeter idea that big business is good business-
-that monopoly may be an engine of progress are not lost upon certain of its originators. For Schumpeter, the final outcome of innovation and accumulation through the hegemony of the large firm is the automatization of progress and the obsolescence of the entrepreneurial function.
Now, that type of language means that those who so believe think there is no room for the small businessman. And then he goes on:
The resemblances of his theory of economic development to Marxist ideology are plain. According to Karl Marx, the transformation of private property into "capitalist private property" through the same type of concentration in the hands of the few would bring into being the first phases of communism, with entrepreneurs transformed into hired managers.
Now is that not exactly what is taking place and is that not exactly what the retail merchants are complaining about? They are being put into the position where one by one they become the victims of these monopolies, this giant octopus. They are going to have to close their doors and hire themselves out as managers to run the business on a salary for the big groups.
This is a very, very serious situation and I want to say to the government in all sincerity that this may be a warning; this may be the writing on the wall because if the government will only think back I think they will realize that the small businessman, the independent merchant, has been the backbone and support of their party. This has been the sector of our economy upon which they have depended most heavily for consistent support. Now we And that the primary producers are discontented and if the government loses the support of the independent, small merchant class-which they appear to be in great danger of losing unless they pay heed to these warnings-they are going to find themselves without their chief support.
I would like to refer to another matter which affects the small independent merchant in a slightly different way. On March 26 last I addressed a question to the Minister of Justice, as reported on page 2691 of Hansard:
Has the Minister of Justice received a recent request from the Canadian association of consumers for an amendment to section 369 of the Criminal Code in order that effective action may be taken with regard to trading stamps? If so, is it the intention of the minister to recommend an amendment this session to this section of the act?
The Minister of Justice simply replied that he had not received any such request. Of course that was a complete evasion because he had received such a request although it had not been a recent request. So my hon. friend, the hon. member for Moose Mountain, immediately rose to ask the minister if he had ever received such a request from the