It seems to me the minister has made an argument just exactly the opposite of the argument he made on the previous section. I fully agree that a person deprived of his property by a criminal offence should be entitled to have it restored to him by the court without being put to the further expense of a civil case. I agree with that. Now the minister is using the reverse argument and stating because of the existence of a civil remedy in many cases, there should be no order in criminal proceedings for the payment of costs to an aggrieved person. The argument does not seem to me to apply, as I pointed out, under section 1044 which, it is true, is for limited cases.