Mr. A. H. CLARKE.

The law clerk has pointed out that sections 6 and 7 ought to be consolidated, that there is a little repetition. He suggests, and I move, that in clause 7, subclause 2, after the word 'consist' in the first line the word 'only' should

57T3

be inserted, and in clause 6 all except the first two lines should be struck out, and then as subclause 3 we should insert:

Ordinary members shall consist of such persons only as are-

That does not change the purpose of the Bill, it simply puts the two' paragraphs into one with a sub-paragraph defining who are participating members and who are ordinary members.

Mr. S. SHARPE.

I do not think there should be any objection to such a clause as the hon. member (Mr. J. Haggart) has suggested, providing that no application was refused when it was confirmed by two members of the association.

Mr. A. H. CLARKE.

The only objection I see to that is that it seems to be contrary to the usual usage of associations and joint stock companies. In this way the company would have no voice as to who should become members.

Mr. J. HAGGART.

I am not pressing the point, but we are really creating a trust.

Mr. S. SHARPE.

Would it not be a greater trust if you admitted all the owners?

Mr. J. HAGGART.

No, because it would be open to every person in the business. Of course, it would be a greater trust as against the public, but as against the mill owners it would not be.

Mr. S. SHARPE.

By the terms of the by-law the executive committee must pass upon a man's application, they have power to reject a man. This Bill was carefully considered, and the trust aspect was greatly eliminated in clause 11. I suggested that they should not have power to purchase mills.

Mr. PORTER.

The clause is not framed se as to meet the wishes of the promoter. As I understand his desire is that all millers should be admitted, but the wording is only such persons as according to bylaws hereafter to be adopted are declared eligible. If the company passed a by-law declaring that no one is eligible, then you would have a close corporation.

Mr. FISHER.

My hon. friend does not quite seize the meaning of the section. If he will read section 7, and the warding is not changed under the amendment of the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Glarke), he will see that such persons only as are the owners or lessees of a mill, farmers and grain growlers shall be eligible. And in addition such other persons as are by bylaw hereinafter provided. But the by-law has nothing to do with the classes I have mentioned. They are eligible by the Act. * The others are to be eligible by bylaw.

Mr. PORTER.

Does the hon. minister interpret the Bill to mean that all per sons of the classes enumerated are eligible to become members?

Mr. FISHER.

They are not shut out by the statute. Their entrance might be made so difficult that it would be hard for them to get in, but by the statute they are not shut out. The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) was quite correct in saying that the arrangement for entering the association is that two members must endorse the application. Then it is submitted to the executive committee and they pass upon it, and the impression is that they are only too glad to get everybody in they can.

Mr. A. H. CLARKE.

This goes further than

the section in the present Act. Under the present Act only millers are entitled to become members. This extends to farmers as well. We are not limiting what they have but rather extending it.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

The motion of the hon. member for Essex is that clauses 6 and 7 be consolidated to read as follows:

Section 7 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted:-

The members of the association shall consist of two classes: (a) Participating members, (b) Ordinary members.

2. The participating members shall consist of such members of the association as subscribe for and are allotted one or more shares of the capital stock of the association, the issue of which is provided for by section 3 of this Act, and such shares shall be entitled to preferred cumulative dividends to an amount not exceeding ten per cent per annum.

Ordinary members shall consist of such persons only as are owners of a mill for the manufacture of flour, meal or other similar commodities, or lessees of such a mill actually carrying on the business of milling therein, farmers and grain-growers and such other persons as are by by-law hereafter provided for.

Mr. J. HAGGART.

I want clearly to understand the distinction between ordinary members and the others. An ordinary member, I understand, receives no dividends and pays nothing for the stock. The others are stock-holders and receive dividends.

Mr. A. H. CLARKE.

That is right.

Mr. BLAIN.

When this matter was un for discussion last, it was referred back

to the committee. May I ask the Minister of Agriculture, who is taking care of the farmers in particular, if their interests have been well guarded. When it was discussed in the House on a former occasion, the suggestion was made that possibly a further combine-if it may be called a combine-of the smaller millers of Canada would be detrimental to the interests of the farming community in the purchase of offal and the products of the ordinary mill. I am not offering criticism or objection further than to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if, in his opinion, the farmers' interests are well taken care of, and it is clear that this will not be a combine of the millers against the farmers' interests.

Mr. FISHER.

I am a member of the Private Bills Committee to which this Bill was referred back. The committee referred to a special subcommittee. I was not a member of that subcommittee, but I know what discussions went on there and was present at. some of them. The question of the possibility of a combine, I think, is the most- important question in connection with this Bill. The other provisions affect the future stock-holders or the present members of the Millers' Association, and I shall not give an opinion upon these because I think they are largely the concern of these people themselves. The possibility of a combine, however, has been attempted to be guarded against by an addition to_clause 11 of the Bill providing as follows:

-if the association in any way fixes the prices at which its members shall buy or sell grain or other commodities in such a way as would have made the members of the association liable to the provisions of the Criminal Code or any other Act had they individually agreed together to the like effect, such members as acquiesce therein shall he liable under the provisions of the said Code or other Act, notwithstanding that such fixing of the price of grain or other commodities is the act of the association in the same way as if they had individually agreed together to do such acts.

I do not give a legal opinion, not being a lawyer, but this amendment seems to provide that if this association should take any action in the way of making a combine, each member of the association will be liable under the ordinary lawT.

Mr. PORTER.

Is not that what the law now provides, even without this clause?

Mr. FISHER.

I understand that the Criminal Code applies to individuals making what is considered by the law to he a combine. If the association, as an association, were to make such an arrangement, it is thought possible the criminal law might not apply-I do not say that it would Mr. BLAIN.

or that it would not. But this makes it apply. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, without presuming to give a legal opinion, that the public will be in no worse position by reason of the passing of this Act. If that be the case, the danger of a combine is provided against.

Mr. SPROULE.

I opposed this Bill before, and cited a case, but, I am free to admit, on information given me which was not correct. I believe the railway company was involved, not the Millers' Association. I understand that the rate given in the case I referred to was exactly the same rate that the Miller's Association was paying, and that they encountered the same difficulty as I did-that the railway company would not guarantee to put the freight through in any given time, not even in six weeks or three months. I was told of an instance of grain ordered from the west to be delivered in Ontario, which was /not received for about three months. I would regard the Bill as distinctly beneficial to the agriculturists of Ontario to-day. And for this reason: The more western grain is purchased to be ground in mills in Ontario, the larger the amount of offal will be available for the Ontario farmers, and our farmers are principally feeders whose great requirement is more feed, more grain for their stock. To-day, feed can be got only in Ontario, or in the wrest, but principally in the west. Sometimes, you can get only a portion of a carload, if, instead of a few millions of bushels of grain brought down in the year, that was increased to twenty times as many, there would be twenty times the amount of feed to be had here. And the feed we get from the mills here is a better quality for feeding purposes-at least we think so-than what we get from the west.

Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.