Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

The question of the appointment of counsel representing the Canadian branch of the British Empire Legion is one matter; the appointment of counsel to represent returned soldiers is another. I think I intimated that such counsel should be appointed, but he should not be under the instructions of the legion. He should be there

Excise Act Amendment

to represent returned soldiers, generally. It would be a wrong principle if counsel were not secured to represent, and did not in fact represent the great mass of soldiers who are not members of the legion. The membership of that organization is said to be about 75,000, out of a total number of returned men of something over 300,000. To that extent I think matters should rest until we can have a conference with the chairman, and it might be concurred in to-morrow.

Motion stands.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to

inform the house that I have received the following letter:

Ottawa, April 1, 1930.

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Anglin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 9.00 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to the interim supply bill.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

James F. Crowdy,

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. The Honourable

The Speaker of the House of Commons,

Ottawa.

Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):

May I call the attention of the house to the fact that there were five committees scheduled for this morning at eleven o'clock. The committees were banking and commerce, industrial and international relations, special committees on pensions and returned soldiers' problems, railways, canals and telegraph lines, and agriculture and colonization. It is impossible for members to attend all these meetings, and I suggest there should be some sort of clearing house so that committees will not clash in that way.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I think the hon. gentleman

might make a statement with regard to this resolution.

Mr. EULER:

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill are not many; they are designed almost entirely to clear up some problems and some inconsistencies which have developed during the administration of the act. There are one or two additions all of which, as I say, are designed to make the working of the act more clear with regard to certain weaknesses which have developed. I think possibly if hon. members would allow the motion to pass, the information in detail can be given much better a little later on. I can assure hon. members that the additions which are being made are very simple in their nature and do not involve any great principle at all.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

Mr. BENNETT:

I suppose this resolution

has received the approval of His Excellency the Governor General?

Mr. EULER:

Yes, the matter has been

brought to the attention of His Excellency the Governor General and his consent has been obtained.

Mr. STEVENS:

If we adopt this resolution we agree to the principle of all that is contained in it, and it covers rather a wide range. Would the minister be good enough to take the points one by one and let us know just what are the explanations, in order that we may follow them in their relation to the present act? For instance there is the question of examining witnesses on oath. I understood that the act covered that already. What is the need for that amendment, and wherein does it amend the present act?

Mr. EULER:

That particular provision

arises almost directly out of an investigation which was held in Halifax last year, to which reference was made at the close of the session by the leader of the opposition. We found then that our own officers had not power to examine witnesses under oath, and an order in council was necessary to give them that power. In outlying sections of the country it will make it very much easier if the officers have that power. I do not see how anyone

Excise Act Amendment

can possibly be prejudiced in the matter, and certainly it will make the work of the officials of the department a great deal easier.

The next amendment, providing for the payment of reasonable travelling expenses, explains itself pretty well. The proposition to impose duty on screened malt is to do away with the present condition whereby coomings and screenings are compensated for by a refund after the goods have been imported. We are going to do away with that altogether, so that no duty will be paid on the screenings but only on the net result after the screenings have been removed. Then there will be no necessity for refunds. I am not sure that I can add anything more.