Henry Herbert STEVENS

STEVENS, The Hon. Henry Herbert, P.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Kootenay East (British Columbia)
Birth Date
December 8, 1878
Deceased Date
June 14, 1973
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Herbert_Stevens
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=b2723513-c609-4a5c-87f4-bd7c225ccd75&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
accountant, broker, grocer

Parliamentary Career

September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Vancouver City (British Columbia)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (September 21, 1921 - December 28, 1921)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
CON
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (September 21, 1921 - December 28, 1921)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Agriculture (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of Customs and Excise (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of Mines (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of the Interior (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Customs and Excise (July 13, 1926 - September 24, 1926)
August 25, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Kootenay East (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (August 7, 1930 - October 26, 1934)
October 14, 1935 - January 1, 1938
REC
  Kootenay East (British Columbia)
January 1, 1938 - January 25, 1940
CON
  Kootenay East (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 2601)


June 1, 1939

Mr. STEVENS:

What were the dates of the last three?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Full View Permalink

June 1, 1939

Mr. STEVENS:

The second remedy to which the minister refers can be applied only after further action in the courts-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Full View Permalink

June 1, 1939

Mr. STEVENS:

Probably there were two or more fines. In any event, if I am not mistaken that case was prosecuted on the initiative of and because of pressure supplied by the federal authorities. In the instance that has been referred to by the hon. member for Huron North, the initial report by the commissioner is very damaging. I have had some information in regard to the matter apart from the report which would indicate a definite combine; and for the moment leaving aside the question of price fixing, there is clearly disclosed the other feature of restraint of trade. The operation of the combine, or of the associated members of the combine, has resulted in driving an independent competitor out of business.

May I suggest to the minister that a number of ways are open to him. One, and I suppose the most orthodox, would be to leave it to the attorney general of the province to take action. Another way would be to proceed, as the minister and the hon.

* member for Huron North have indicated the government have power to proceed, under the Customs Tariff. There is a third way,

I suggest; that is, under the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. It is true that this commission is somewhat restricted because of the privy council decisions, but speaking subject to correction I believe certain parts of this act were declared intra vires, and I understand that the commission exists. As to personnel, of course, it is the same as the tariff board, but it exists as a commission under this act.

Let me assume that the attorney general is not disposed to take action. In that case there would seem to be no reason why the minister should not refer the report of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act to the trade and industry commission. That commission, while restricted as to mandatory power, at least could have a public hearing in the matter and thoroughly investigate it under section 23, which deals with unfair trade practices. Then, whatever may be the limitation of their power in issuing cease and desist orders, at least through the publicity given they could in all probability bring about some degree of remedy. My own feeling, however, is that where a case is made out, as I am confident a case has been made out in this instance, the federal authorities of their own initiative ought to insist on a prosecution. I do not see the Minister of Justice here, but any legal member of the house thoroughly acquainted with the law will correct me if I am wrong when I say that I do not think there is anything in the law which prevents the federal authorities from initiating such a prosecution. I know the law contemplates that this shall be done by the attorney general; there is no question about that, but I do not think the federal authorities are precluded from taking action when the provincial attorney general refrains from doing so.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Full View Permalink

June 1, 1939

Mr. STEVENS:

*-by the attorney general, and after conviction has been obtained.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Full View Permalink

June 1, 1939

Mr. STEVENS:

Would the minister just ' answer the specific question as to whether or not there is anything in the law-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Full View Permalink