It does not make the act subject to review at all. The Minister of Defence Production extended a rather moth-eaten
Defence Production Act olive branch in the form of a declaration that the orders made under this act would be tabled and that within a certain period of time after those orders were tabled this could be brought before the house. I have too much respect for the judgment and quick thinking of the hon. member for Spadina io believe for one moment that he is under any illusion as to what review that would give.
In the first place it would be a review of an order, not a review of the act. It is only the right to object. We have already seen over and over again when a motion of this nature is made that someone on the other side gets up immediately, as they have the right to do, after the objection has been made and moves the adjournment of the debate. That is the end of it. There is no assurance of anything else. It is the right to one peep and that is all. It is the right for one member to say that he does not like it. Even our friends over here would not have the opportunity to speak, because a member of the government would get up and move the adjournment and the peep would be all over. It would be one little objection, that is all; it would not be a review of the act.
It is no reflection on the word of the Prime Minister-what I am talking about now is parliamentary procedure-when I say that the assurance of the Prime Minister means literally nothing. It means nothing for two reasons. First of all he cannot give an effective assurance and, second, we have the right already. All he is saying is that we will have the right to a peep, just a little sound and nothing else.
Subtopic: AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT