I realize that, as -the minister has said, this is a decision of the cabinet, and for that reason he -proposes to stand by the amendment now before us. I would point out, however, that the reduction in time in this instance is very substantial. It is not a reduction from three years to two years or to one year; it is a reduction from three years to six months, or only one-sixth the time that was previously given. It does seem to me that if over the years three years was regarded as a satisfactory time, conclusive reasons should be given, before an amendment is adopted which might very easily deprive some company or individual of a substantial sum of money because, acting in perfectly good faith, they did not know they were entitled to it and failed to give notice. The minister has said the cabinet has decided, but after all I assume the cabinet decides on all these bills that are brought before us.
I urge the minister to reconsider his decision, or in any event to give us a positive and clear example by specific reference which would indicate the reason for such a substantial reduction. It may well be that those on -this side of the house discussing this matter cannot give specific cases in which
they think hardship would arise. In the very nature of things that information is not available to them. Before an existing legal right is taken away in this manner we should have much more information than is before us at the present time.
Subtopic: AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY ACT AND TO FACILITATE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT