I would like to say a word or two on the Fifth Stage. As in the case of the Works Bill, there is in the Bill now before the House in its present form considerable justification for the line we adopted during the Second Reading and on Committee. This measure now contains two very vital provisions which it did not contain when it was presented for Second Reading. One is the provision that in the event of the Minister and his officials entering upon land to do a certain type of work, the owner of that land shall get notification of the Minister's intention. The second is the amendment we have been discussing this evening to the effect that if damage results to any landower he is provided with a means of seeking compensation.
I know that I may not express any opinion on the provisions I think should be in this Bill; but I think it would have considerably improved this Bill from our point of view if the Minister had conceded the amendment on which we divided a short time ago. I cannot understand why the Minister introduced this Bill in the bald way in which it appeared in the House in the first instance. Neither do I understand how the Minister succeeded in obtaining the approval of the Government to this Bill. I understand that before any measure is introduced the Government must approve of it. I could find no reason on the Second Reading why the two matters that are now covered as a result of the amendment introduced by the Minister because of the pleas advanced by the Opposition were not covered in the measure in the first instance. Perhaps it was a tactical move on the part of the Minister. Perhaps he said to himself: "The chances are that I shall be pressed by the Opposition to accept amendments of one kind or another and it would be a bit awkward for me if, with all legal aid at my disposal, I endeavoured to make the measure too perfect; therefore, to the extent that I believe it is perfect I shall have to resist amendments, and I may be accused by the Opposition of being unreasonable in not meeting them in some respect." I thought of that as a possible explanation. But I do not think it can be the explanation because the provisions that were omitted are far too important. I was amazed when I looked at the measure on the Second Reading and discovered that the Minister responsible for it, holding the views he so often expressed here in the past, had come forward to the House with proposals which, if implemented without amendment, would run counter to the rights of private persons upon which the Minister so emphatically expressed himself in the past.