#ernest lapointe

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Midway through the strike, the Winnipeg Citizen newspaper published an analysis that neatly summed up the conspiracy theory that conditioned thinking not just about the General Strike but about the Red Scare in its entirety. Taking as its source a series of articles in the New York World, the Citizen announced that, according to “information secured in the inner councils of the Bolsheviki of this continent,” the “Red Five,” the masterminds of the revolutionary movement in Canada, were Winnipeg machinist Dick Johns, William Pritchard and Victor Midgley from Vancouver, Joe Knight from Edmonton, and Joe Naylor from the Vancouver Island mining community of Cumberland. These five men belonged to the inner circle of activists behind the One Big Union, and since the OBU was the Bolshevik conspiracy incarnate, said the Citizen, they comprised the sinister cabal that intended to take advantage of labour struggles such as the Winnipeg strike to overturn the government and replace it with a Red regime. These men had at their disposal “2,500 trained and paid agitators” who knew how “to impress and convert the wage earners,” warned the Citizen, which went on to declare that, “the Bolshevist idea […] has appealed to a greater number of people in the United States and Canada than is generally believed, and the number of supporters is constantly increasing.”

...

Early in the strike the federal government made it clear that it would not remain a neutral observer. Four days after the walkout began, Arthur Meighen, the acting minister of justice, and Minister of Labour Gideon Robertson left Ottawa on a train for Winnipeg to see for themselves what was going on. The government’s attitude was summed up by Meighen, who characterized strike leaders as “revolutionists of various degrees and types, from crazy idealists down to ordinary thieves.” When the two federal cabinet ministers reached Fort William, A.J. Andrews of the Citizens’ Committee of 1,000 was there to greet them. The fifty-four-year-old Andrews would emerge as a key figure in the strike. A lawyer and a former two-term Winnipeg mayor (he was known as “the boy mayor” because of his youthful appearance), he was a well-connected Conservative with a membership in the city’s exclusive social elite.

(Coincidentally, he had run for a seat in the legislature in the 1914 Manitoba election and lost to the labour candidate Fred Dixon, who would be arrested for his role in the strike.)

The Toronto Daily Star called Andrews “the principal human factor opposing the strike movement.” He had been “here there and everywhere” during the strike, the paper said. It was Andrews who would draft Mayor Gray’s ban on street parades; Andrews who met with visiting federal politicians when they came to town; Andrews who corresponded regularly with Arthur Meighen and consulted with him on legislation aimed at the strike leaders; Andrews who decided whether to keep the arrested strike leaders in jail or not. In short, Andrews was Winnipeg’s Wizard of Oz, lurking behind the curtain, manipulating the levers of power.

At the Fort William meeting, Andrews impressed upon Meighen and Robertson that the government had to take a tough stand against the strikers. Both cabinet ministers accepted the view that they were dealing with a sinister plot aimed at overthrowing the government. As the Star reported, the two men “are not preserving neutrality, they are openly opposed” to the strike. A few days later in Winnipeg, Meighen warned that “it is up to the citizens of Winnipeg to stand firm and resist the efforts made here to overturn proper authority.” He had already appointed Andrews the justice department’s special representative on the ground with the assignment of gathering evidence against the strike leadership that would prove they were engaged in a seditious conspiracy. On his return to Ottawa, Meighen—who had refused to meet with any of the strike leaders while he was in Winnipeg —rose to speak in the House of Commons on June 2 and made it clear that his government saw recent events as what he termed “the perfection of Bolshevism.” Meighen argued that by definition a general strike was an insurrection.

A general strike to succeed or, indeed, to continue, must result in the usurpation of governmental authority on the part of those controlling the strike. It did so result in Winnipeg; it must ever so result.

This was the crucial issue, said Meighen, not collective bargaining or some other labour issue, and the government must hold firm. “It was essential that the greater issue raised by the assumption of Soviet authority […] should be once and for all decided and be decisively beaten down …” From the beginning, then, the federal government made it clear that it was committed to the suppression of the strike, not its resolution.

There was an alternative view of the strike articulated in Parliament that day. It was proposed by Ernest LaPointe, the Liberal member for Kamouraska district in Quebec. A lawyer and future justice minister, LaPointe was one of the Laurier loyalists who had remained true to the old leader during the vote over conscription. He was considered to be one of the bright lights of the party in Quebec. He spoke ahead of Meighen, but in response to the comments of the Conservative member for North Winnipeg, Dr M.R. Blake, who had just told the House that “sedition must be stamped out” and that “radical socialist leaders must be interned or deported.” LaPointe argued that the origins of the Winnipeg strike could be found in the high cost of living and the workers’ natural resentment against a system

which allows meat trusts, flour trusts, and other dealers in the necessaries of life to pile up their dividends and multiply their millions while the prices of bread, bacon, meat and other commodities are soaring into altitudes heretofore unknown.

But what was to be done in the short term to establish peace between labour and capital, LaPointe asked? For one thing, “it is useless to mystify the public by acting a Bolshevist melodrama,” he said. These were “wild and stupid accusations.” The labour movement was simply acting on its determination to achieve equal power with the employer; the charges of Bolshevism were “slanderous attacks” on reputable labour leaders. In his view, the government was mishandling the situation and Senator Robertson had ended his usefulness as a mediator by siding so recklessly with one side in the dispute. As for Meighen, he was not temperamentally suited to settling disputes. “He stands in Canada as the Apostle of arbitrary enactments and despotic legislation,” thundered LaPointe, a reference to Meighen’s earlier role in forcing through conscription.

In the end, LaPointe did not have any suggestions to offer as to how the government might settle the Winnipeg dispute, though he did recommend a national conference of employers and employees to discuss the larger issues. Meanwhile, the most he had to offer was the usual vague advice from an Opposition MP: “Do something and do it now.” In precisely two weeks, the government would take this advice, though not in the way that LaPointe would have imagined."

- Daniel Francis, Seeing Reds: the Red Scare of 1918-1919, Canada’s First War on Terror. Arsenal Pulp Press, 2011. p. 136, 140-142.

[lazyjacks]

CCGS Ernest Lapointe and HMCS Bras D’Or, Musée Maritime du Québec

[letterboxd]

Pixar’s Picks: Family Films.

You’re stuck inside, saving the world. So we asked a group of award-winning Pixar filmmakers to help self-isolating families plan the very best movie nights (and days, and nights, and days…). And we talked to children’s film specialist Nicola Marshall about the beauty of movies made for kids, especially now.

Children deserve to watch great films, but kids are famously honest viewers. They’ll tell you instantly when they don’t like something. And when they do, it pays off: in Academy Awards (this year, for Hair Love and Toy Story 4), in stone-cold cash (as Box Office Mojo’s Top Box Office Grosses by G-rating confirms), and in precious family memories.

But where to turn when you need a quality watchlist of family films? When you want a guaranteed banger that the whole family will love, or when you want to move your child to next-level-cinephile status with a choice that will floor them? The answer, to us at least, is obvious: Pixar to the rescue!

We asked a group of the renowned studio’s directors and story artists—the people behind WALL·E, Finding Nemo, Inside Out, Bao, La Luna, The Good Dinosaur, Purl, Cars 3, Toy Story 4 and more—to show up in your hour of need, and show up they have, with personal recommendations that we’ve split into three Letterboxd lists: All Ages, 7 to 12 Years and 12 Years and Over.

From two-minute shorts to the entire Harry Potter collection, there’s something for every viewing window. From Charlie Chaplin to Greta Gerwig, the films cover a century of cinema; and from slapstick to horror, a multitude of genres.

Our filmmakers were remarkably restrained, nominating more Studio Ghibli films than Pixar movies, though they collectively agreed that Toy Story should most definitely be there. So we’ll say it for them: please explore all the films of our contributing filmmakers: Angus MacLane, Domee Shi, Kristen Lester, Daniel Chong, Peter Sohn, Valerie LaPointe, Brian Fee, Enrico Casarosa and Andrew Stanton. Thanks, you wonderful people.

Hayao Miyazaki’s ‘My Neighbor Totoro’ (1988).

Since many of us at Letterboxd HQ are grateful parents, this feels like a good moment to reflect on the enormous importance of ‘family’ films—so we pulled in our friend Nicola Marshall for a chat. She’s the founder of the Square Eyes film foundation, a curator of children’s film festival content, and a friend of the Henson family (not long ago, she created a live show with The Muppets and Flight of the Conchords’ Bret McKenzie).

Like most of us, Nicola is currently in self-isolation, after the hasty wrap-up of the 23rd annual New York International Children’s Film Festival (of which she is an advisory board member).

We’re living in an extraordinary time. How do movies help kids work out what’s going on in and around their lives? Nicola Marshall: Films are an essential way to unpack big feelings during big times. Like all of us, kids are expressing, and suppressing, all kinds of emotions right now, and are sponges for absorbing the emotions of the adults around them. Using a familiar medium to help unpack all we’re feeling, no matter how old we are, feels like a great plan to me. Art always supports processing and groundedness in uncertain times.

What’s your overall impression of the choices made by our Pixar friends for these lists? These are brilliant, eclectic selections—what superb curators these remarkable Pixar creators are, right? An excellent mix of films made for young audiences, and titles bound to appeal to them.

I’m thrilled to see, alongside some beautiful surprises and unknown gems, a lot of long-time personal favorites (Ernest & Celestine, Millions, Ponyo, The Muppet Movie, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Red Balloon, My Neighbor Totoro, The Kid, Gerald McBoing-Boing, Wallace & Gromit, Modern Times, The Iron Giant, The Phantom Tollbooth, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday, Yellow Submarine, Bicycle Thieves, Megan Follows as Anne of Green Gables… they go on!).

While the lists lean heavily on a canon of western-produced films, there are some terrific international cinema choices in the mix here (The World of Us, Good Morning), and a bunch of lesser-known historic titles I’m super eager to check out (Preston Sturges marathon, here I come!).

Yasujirō Ozu’s ‘Good Morning’ (1959).

Some of the Pixar directors included horror films—Get Out, It—and some Hitchcock thrillers in their 12 Years and Over lists. These selections are for older teenagers, clearly. What are your thoughts on the role of scares in kids’ viewing experiences? I’ve always been interested in the psychology of frightening films. Personally I’m too much of a big scaredy-cat for horror to be a genre that generally works for me (self-censorship all the way!), but there are a whole bunch of people out there who really love a good freak-out; kiddos included.

As a kid I think you’re always testing and readjusting your limits on where your fear boundaries are. One of the highly anticipated and super popular NYICFF collections each year is 'Heebie Jeebies’—short films that go out of their way to freak and fright. Kids (and the adults who attend alongside them) adore this collection and the expectation of being spooked.

I think humans love experiencing extreme feelings in small doses, to feel alive, whether we have big sensation-seeking personalities or not—and seeing something terrifying on screen has a certain safety to it. I also think scary films in collectively tricky times offer catharsis and adrenal release, and give us permission to scream long and loud, when that’s all we really feel like doing!

The New York International Children’s Film Festival wrapped up suddenly as the coronavirus pandemic began its march into the United States, but you did manage to screen much of the program. Other film festivals weren’t so fortunate. Would you like to take a small moment to celebrate the main takeaways of this year’s fest? NYICFF was so lucky to share three of the planned four collective viewing weekends, just ahead of a swift city-wide shutdown. I’m a tad biased, but I really do feel you only have to look to NYICFF’s annual programming to get a genuine sense of the state of the world for young people globally; the issues they face and what themes are currently resonating.

Our programming director Maria-Christina Villaseñor consistently curates a remarkable selection of films that speak to the experience of young people, valuing their views and voices, always insightful, and never condescending.

This year saw a number of films—feature and short—that depicted stories of kids determined to make a difference and taking self-guided steps into activism and action. My faith in our future is pretty darn solid right now thanks to the optimism and commitment of these kids—and the filmmakers giving voice to young audiences and speaking to big themes and shared cross-cultural truths.

Nicola Marshall.

What can the rest of the movie industry learn from all-ages creators and studios? I wish that there was greater wider-industry acknowledgement of the massive contributions that content for family and kids audiences make in terms of moving the overall film industry forward, both artistically and societally. As well as showing us fresh, meaningful and authentic ways to tell stories, the genuine commitment to diversity and inclusion in this space is meaningful, often to the point where it feels completely natural, unforced and expected in content for this audience, rather than some kind of box-ticking effort.

What do you think this pandemic will offer the storytellers of the future? I think we will come out of this time ready to offer stories with even greater connectedness and empathy. I think our collective slowing will allow, if we let it, an incredible development incubator. How we make our way through this uncertain time as adults and work through our relationship with fear and the unknown will hugely resonate with the kids we’re sharing our lives with. I think we can use art and story and myth and expression and feeling to navigate us all through.

For all those hunkered down with small people, what better time to share your favorite screen stories, and discover new films together. What we chose to watch and to share and to rewatch; to talk about and unpack our feelings around and distract ourselves with through this weird, big time will make a real difference to the kids in our lives, and their innate imaginative-storyteller selves, now and future.

Finally, what are your favorite Pixar movies? Pixar has always excelled at making incredible films with grown-up sensibilities squarely aimed at young audiences—truly cross-generational cinema, my very favorite kind. I love WALL·E for its seamless mix of art and heart, Brave for its representation of girl-strength, and Inside Out for exploring the shared humanness of feeling things deeply, and for reassuring us how valid and essential sadness is.

Related content

Pixar’s short films ranked according to Letterboxd community ratings.

Our 2018 interview with ‘Paddington’ and ‘Paddington 2’ director Paul King.

[hurricanehenry]

To show support Canada should cancel all Saudi oil imports into Quebec. Canada buys over $3B in oil from the Saudi's but some pop star is the problem? Pop star Justin Bieber is facing growing calls to cancel his concert in Saudi Arabia next month as the fiance of slain Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi urged him not to perform at the kingdom’s Formula One race. https://bddy.me/3kT0cBC Ernest Lapointe, in 1941: “How much one owes to be true to the people.”[-- this stands out for me - I hate pmjt & everything he does -- the worst is that he is a LIAR ] https://www.instagram.com/p/CWj_AtQjuuh/?utm_medium=tumblr

[motherofalien-archive]

A Masterlist of Underused French Names

So as a French person, I grew a little bit tired of seeing the same old French names over and over again. So under the cut is a list of 260 (185 first names and 105 surnames) underused French names, based on my experience, with the bolded ones being my favorites! And now don’t get me wrong, many of those names are not strictly French, and are in other languages too. But just know they are used in French too, so they can be used for your French character if needed. And there are obviously a lot of other names you can go for!

Female Names

Agathe

Alexandrine

Amélie

Andréa

Andréanne

Angélique

Anne

Apolline

Ariane / Arianne

Audrey

Brigitte

Cadence

Camille

Cécile

Céleste

Céline

Chantal / Chantale

Charlotte

Chenelle

Christelle

Christiane

Christine

Claire

Clara

Claudie

Clémence

Coralie

Darcie

Delphine

Desirée

Dianne

Élaine / Élène / Hélène / probably a lot of other variations

Éléonore

Éloïse

Émilie

Estelle

Èvelyn

Félicia

France

Geneviève

Giselle

Isabelle

Jacinthe

Jacqueline

Jeanie

Joanne

Joceline

Joséphine

Julie

Juliette

Laure

Laurie

Lavinia

Léa

Liliane

Linette

Loraine

Madeleine

Maia / Maya

Mallory

Margaux

Margerite

Marianne

Marjolaine

Marjorie

Mathilde

Maude

Mélanie

Mélodie

Mélusine

Myriam

Nancy

Nathalie

Noémie

Ophélie

Rachel / Rachelle

Rosalie

Rosemarie

Roxane / Roxanne

Solange

Stéphanie

Susanne / Suzanne

Thérèse

Valérie

Véronique

Violette

Virginie

Viviane

Male Names

Adrien

Alain

Antoine

Arnaud

Baptiste

Benjamin

Benoit

Bernard

Bruno

Charles

Christian

Christophe

Clovis

Colin

Damien

David

Didier

Dilan

Edmond

Edouard

Eliott

Émile

Ernest

Étienne

Fabrice

Félix

François

Gaspard

Gaston

Gauthier

Geoffrey / Geoffroy

Grégoire

Guillaume

Henri

Hubert

Ivan / Yvan

Jacques

Jérémie / Jérémy

Jérôme

Joseph

Jules

Karel

Laurent

Léo

Léon

Léonard

Lionel

Luc

Marc

Martin

Mathieu / Matthieu

Maurice

Merlin

Nathanaël

Nicholas / Nicolas

Olivier

Paul

Philip / Philippe

Pierre

Quentin

Raymond

Rémi / Rémy

Richard

Robert

Roland

Romain

Sébastien

Simon

Sylvain

Thierry

Thomas

Tristan

Victor

Vincent

Xavier

Unisex Names

Carol (male) / Carole (female)

Claude

Daniel (male) / Danielle (female)

Denis (male) / Denise (female)

Dominic (male) / Dominique (female)

Eugène (male) / Eugénie (female)

Fabien (male) / Fabienne (female)

Frédéric (male) / Frédérique (female)

Jasmin (male) / Jasmine (female)

Jean (male) / Jeane (female)

Joël (male) / Joëlle (female)

Jordan (male) / Jordane (female)

Justin (male) / Justine (female)

Louis (male) / Louise (female)

Lucien (male) / Lucienne (female)

Marcel (male) / Marcelle (female)

Michel (male) / Michelle (female)

Noël (male) / Noëlle (female)

Pascal (male) / Pascale (female)

Patrice

Samuel (male) / Samuelle (female)

Valentin (male) / Valentine (female)

Surnames

Adam

Allaire

Allard

Archambault

Beauchêne

Beaulieu

Beaumont

Bélanger

Béranger

Bernard

Bertrand

Blanchard

Blanchet

Boivin

Bouchard

Boucher

Brisbois

Brodeur

Bureau

Caron

Charbonneau

Cloutier

Comtois

Côté

Courtemanche

Cousineau

Couture

Delacroix

Desautels

Deschamps

Descôteaux

Desjardins

Desrochers

Desrosiers

Duboit

Duchamps

Dufort

Dufour

Duval

Fabron

Faucher

Faucheux

Favreau

Félix

Fontaine

Fortier

Fournier

Gagné

Gagnon

Girard

Giroux

Gosselin

Granger

Guérin

Hébert

Jacques

Labelle

Lachance

Lambert

Langlois

Lapointe

Laurent

Lavigne

Lavoie

Lebeau

Leblanc

Leclair

Leclerc

Lécuyer

Legrand

Lemair

Lemieux

Lévesque

Maçon

Marchand

Martel

Martin

Mathieu

Mercier

Michaud

Moreau

Morel

Paquet

Parent

Patenaude

Pelletier

Perrault / Perreault

Petit

Plamondon

Plourde

Poirier

Poulin

Richard

Richelieu

Robert

Rousseau

Roux

Samson

St-Martin

St-Pierre

Taillefer

Thibault

Thomas

Tremblay

Villeneuve

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“What of the Penitentiary Report?” Ottawa Citizen. December 27, 1939. Page 10. ---- Unrest again "seethes" in Vincent de Paul penitentiary according to a Montreal newspaper, the Standard. It says the inmates are smarting under grievances that have arisen since the Royal Commission on the Penal System was appointed, and goes on to suggest that the report of the commission. might be acted upon.

Little has been heard of the Archambault report in recent months. The government is occupied with more important things just now, of course, but if it has decided to shelve all the recommendations contained in the report until the end of the war it reveals a lack of appreciation of the urgency of the situation.

It more riots break out in the near future there will be the usual complacent demands in a section of the newspaper press for sterner discipline and condign punishment for the ringleaders. But that will not affect the established fact that the riots will be the outcome of defects in the Canadian penal system. Just as the riots which gave rise to the royal commission were.

There have been reports of "unrest" in other penitentiaries besides St. Vincent de Paul. They have been attributed to notorious and degraded criminals who agitate among their more innocent fellows. Again it needs to be said that, even so, the unrest has its roots deeper than the cunning of case-hardened convicts. But the wall of silence about penitentiary affairs appears to have grown up again and there is no knowing what is happening - if anything.

The British government has inaugurated radical prison reforms since the Archamhault report was issued. Canada ought at least to carry out some of the recommendations made by the commission, war or no war. Even if the idea of a prison commission is rejected until after the war (although less needful projects have been sanctioned) there is no reason why such measures as the reorganization of the headquarters administration, the reconstruction of the pentantary personnel and the establishment of a training school for penitentiary officers  would not be put into effect.

“Démenti formel” Le Droit (Ottawa). December 23, 1939 ---- L’hou. Ernest Lapointe, ministre de la justice, vient d'opposer dementi formel aux ru meur de nouveau troubles parmi les bagnards du pénitentier Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, pris de Montréal. En effet, ersqu'on a soumis à l'attention du ministre de la Justice cent article de journal à ce sujet M. Lapointe a déclaré que la regrettable publicité résultant d'u tel article n'avait aucun fonde. “La situation à Vincent-de-Paul est normale et paisble", precisa-t-il. "Il est deplorable, surtout à l’heure atuelle, qu'on fasse et publie de sembables rapportes.”

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“BILL TO REPEAL BAN ON LIQUOR,” Kingston Whig-Standard. February 17, 1933. Page 1 & 14. ---- Vote on Colonel Robinson's Bill Was 100 to 44 Against ---- PRISON REFORM NEED ---- Communist Discussion Again Takes Place in House of Commons ---- OTTAWA, Feb. 17 — Liquor, railways, penitentiaries, Communists, and Section 98 of the Criminal Code provided a varied bill of fare yesterday which Parliament leaves today to revert lo the more prosaic business of voting sums of money for varied branches of the public service. 

The liquor involved was not the liquor drunk by Canadians but the liquor consumed by the supposedly dry citizens of the United States. The question was whether they should be permitted to obtain their liquor from Canada and the answer was "no." 

By a vote of 100 to 44, the House of Commons defeated Col. S. C. Robinson's bill to repeal the ban imposed on the export of liquor to the United States in 1930. Col. Robinson comes from Windsor and in the day before 1930, scores of little boats used to race across the Detroit river carrying Canadian liquor and on every shipment the Government of Canada collected a tax. Now there is no more export and no more tax. 

His argument was Canada was uselessly throwing away needed revenue trying to keep country dry that would not be dry in any case.

Both Premier R. B. Bennett and Mr. Mackenzie King opposed the change and the majority of the House agreed with them. 

Railway Bill in Senate The Senate Railway Committee placed its final approval on the Railway Bill which implements the recommendations of the Duff Royal Commission provides a new organisation for the Canadian National Railways and requires the two railway systems to co-operate in eliminating wasteful competition. The main principles of the bill were left unchanged and it will now receive third reading in the Senate and be passed on to the House of Commons.

Penitentiaries Reviewed Penitentiaries were under review in both Houses of Parliament. The Common discussed a proposal to limit the hour of work of both guards and convicts to eight hours, but it was dropped when Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Justice, stated it was impracticable at the present time. 

In the Senate, Senator John Lewis of Toronto pressed the need of prison reform and accused the Government of arrogance and obstinacy in refusing an inquiry into penitentiary conditions. His resolution urging prison discipline should be based on the principle of reformation rather than punishment was passed with an amendment which stressed the need of protecting society against offenders. 

Communists figured in the House of Commons discussions as J. S. Woodsworth bill to repeal section 98 of the Criminal Code came up again for discussion. John R. MacNicol, from Toronto, said most of the agitation for repeal was carried on by Communists and Socialists. 

Hon. Ernest Lapointe, former Minister of Justice supported the repeal proposal, however, and declared he was as much opposed to Communism as any one: it was a poor way to fight communism, he thought, to enact arbitrary legislation contrary to all principle of law and justice and offensive to many people who had no connection with communism. 

Export Ban Repeal of the export ban, said Mr. King, would place the Government of Canada in the position of "knowingly and openly aiding and abetting smugglers in the violation of the laws of a friendly and neighboring country." It would encourage nun-run' nln along the Canadian frontier making Windsor and other border points a base for criminal operations and "If we are reduced in this country to a position where we can get our revenue and provide employment only by becoming partner in the rum-running business, things have come to a strange pass.” 

Hon. Raymond Morand (Cons. Essex East) declared that the only effect the export ban had been to deprive the Canadian treasury of large incomes and carry out a "noble gesture” that meant nothing. The officials whose integrity was to be protected now signed permits for liquor going to St. Pierre and West Indies, knowing full well that it was destined for the United States and were therefore just as much allies of the smuggler as they had been before, he said.

As a result of the recent riots in federal penitentiaries, the number of guards at the three prisons where riots broke out had been increased, Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Justice, told the House. Another result of the riots will be that more attention will be paid in future to the selection of guards. 

Mr. Guthrie opposed a a bill introduced -by Thomas Reid (Lib., New Westminster) to establish the eight-hour day for both guards and prisoners in penitentiaries. The law now provides for an eight-hour day on all Dominion Government work, except in the penitentiary service. 

After a brief discussion, Mr. Reid withdrew the bill, stating he was pleased with Mr Guthrie's views and did not wont to press the matter at present. 

The "slavish adherence” of members of Parliament to their part was caustically denounced by Miss Agnes MacPhail (C.C.F., South-East Grey), in debate in the resolution advocating repeal at Section 98.

Miss MacPhail delivered strictures at what she called efforts of J. R. MacNichol (Cons. Toronto North-East) to link the C. C .F. up with the Communists. The Communists hated the C. C. F. members because the latter stood between them and violence in this country. 

Humphrey Mitchell (Lib., Hamilton East) was not interested in revolution "or would-be comic opera dictators.” His viewpoint on the matter was that of trade unionism. 

No person had a right to enter this country and preach the forcible overthrow of democratic institutions. The present Government had more responsibility for the existence of the Communist party than any other that had gone before.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"How did the Canadian government see the war after the first, German conquests in  Western Europe? On April 30, 1940, O.D. Skelton wrote a document called The Present Outlook. Skelton was [Prime Minister Mackenzie] King’s under-secretary of Foreign Affairs, thus King’s deputy  minister, his most trusted advisor, one of the leading public servants in Ottawa. Skelton’s document was remarkable for its lack of foresight. For example, it suggested that Japan represented no danger to the allies. It also linked as one force the two, bitter enemies, communism and fascism, as rival forms of totalitarianism, which now united. Skelton  described the horrifying possibility of a victory of the associated Germans, Italians, and  Soviets as if Canada were in an undeclared war with the Soviet Union, now allied with the Nazis. Writing about U.S. neutrality, Skelton wrote that, in the recent past, probable victory for England and France against Germany meant that the American people rightly saw no need to fight against totalitarianism. With the possibility of a victory of a German-Italian-Russian coalition, American public opinion would now change. All this nonsense from one of the most powerful men in Ottawa, a man who had the ear and respect of King about Canada’s war policy. In actual fact, Skelton probably believed the government’s own propaganda about the nature of the war as being a war upon totalitarianism and, therefore, an undeclared war against the U.S.S.R. The nature of anti-Soviet manipulations in Europe during the phoney war was clarified eventually when Swedish diplomatic archives revealed that a week before the German blitzkrieg was launched upon the French, the French government and military had been preparing to  send 50,000 troops to wage war against the U.S.S.R. in Finland, rather than preparing to  defend France against Germany.

After France and the Low Countries fell to the Germans in the Spring of 1940, the character of the war changed for Canada. A general panic among the public ensued. Canada was now the most important ally of the British, isolated and beleaguered in Europe. Canadians rushed to volunteer for the military. The King government insisted upon the voluntary aspect of Canada’s contribution in military manpower. In October, 1939, Duplessis had sought re-election in Quebec by using the threat of conscription, against which Duplessis was to be the bulwark. Federal Liberals, led by Justice minister Ernest Lapointe, promised there would be no conscription, and pledged their seats in Quebec towards this commitment. Duplessis was defeated when Quebeckers voted for the provincial Liberals, led by Adélard Godbout.

What then was to be Canada’s contribution to the defence of Britain? King prepared Canada for a war of limited liability in terms of its contribution to the war effort. The priorities were to be economic aid, which would help Canadian capitalists make profits, re-launch the economy, and create jobs; national unity, especially the unity of King’s Liberal Party, powerful in Quebec; and defending Canada’s borders and infrastructure but even more importantly, Canada’s internal social order. In the immediate flush of pro-British enthusiasm after the start of proceedings, King had sent an army division of 20,000 troops to Britain. He soon regretted this decision when negotiations were held between Britain and Canada to train aviators in Canada as part of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. During the acrimonious negotiations with Britain, King fought and scrapped about the costs of the plan, $600 million per year, of which  Canada was to assume $350 million, in order to train 20,000 airmen per year for use by Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. King insisted that Canada’s contribution to the plan would be its most effective contribution to the war effort. Emphasis on the plan also permitted King to envisage a reduced loss of military lives, which might also ease pressure for conscription.

Many English-Canadians felt that King’s proposed contribution to the war was too calculated, too timid. They wanted Canada to do more than help Britain financially, guard borders and infrastructure, and train aviators. They wanted Canadians to fight alongside Britain, this in spite of the Phoney War early in WWII that precluded immediate, actual combat. In Ontario, the provincial Liberal government of Mitchell Hepburn said so in a resolution, adopted on January 18, 1940, which criticized King’s lack of vigorous execution of the war. King used this occasion to call elections, which were coming due as King was now in the fifth year of government. King manoeuvred the leader of the Tories, Robert Manion, into approving the no-conscription pledge to Quebeckers. On March 26, King won an overwhelming majority, 181 seats out of 245 in the House of Commons. The Liberals were now free to conduct a war of limited liability according to their priorities. King’s priorities for this war of limited liability illuminate the real reason why Canada went to war. Writes Jack Granatstein: “Canada went to war in September, 1939 because Britain had gone to war, and for no other reason. It was not a war for Poland; it was not a war against anti-semitism; it was not even a war against Naziism,” even though the horrible atrocity of the Nazi genocides against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and  political opponents did provide post facto moral justification for World War II and  Canada’s participation therein."

- Michael Martin, The Red Patch: Political imprisonment in Hull, Quebec during World War 2. Self-published, 2007. p. 59-62

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Soon after the fall of France in the Spring of 1940, rightist collaborators in France established a civilian government to rule the southern France, while the Germany military occupied northern France. The rightists’ capital was at Vichy. The president of the government at Vichy was general Philippe Pétain, hero of the French army during World War I, while Pierre Laval, Admiral François Darlan, then Laval once again served as the Vichy prime ministers. At the same time, however, Charles de Gaulle, a junior tank commander in the French army was promoted by the British as leader of the Free French Forces, the small remnant of the French army that had survived the German onslaught to escape from Dunkirk when France fell. De Gaulle was promoted as head of the French government-in-exile, a policy the British applied, as well, to other European countries such as Poland.

After the fall of France, French communists organized resistance to the Nazis and the Vichy regime in spite of the Hitler-Stalin pact, and the bizarre and confusing propaganda that issued from the Communist International in Moscow after the pact. De Gaulle was able to establish salutary links with the communist resistance in France. His stature grew among the allies, especially in the English-speaking world, from which official recognition and support were both tangible and immediate.

In Canada, however, support for de Gaulle’s cause from the federal government, to say the least, was weak, if not entirely absent. In fact, the Canadian government was subjected to a persistent, pro-Vichy campaign. From the fall of France onwards, the typical, anti-communist propaganda in the French-Canadian press which had appeared with increasing frequency before and during World War II was now accompanied by pro-Vichy propaganda, directly supported by Vichy diplomats stationed in French Canada. 

Indeed, Vichy was a source of inspiration to the right in French Canada. Not only was the federal Liberal government aware of the campaign and its provenance; it more or less acquiesced. There are many examples of this pro-Vichy stance from the Canadian government. On November 10, 1941, the federal government’s Information Service addressed a memorandum to Ernest Lapointe about the extent of pro-Vichy propaganda in the French-language press. The aim of the Information Service’s intervention was to obtain the expulsion of the Vichy consuls active in the propaganda campaign.

Lapointe was quite ill, indeed dying, which occurred just two weeks later. No action was taken upon the request to expel Vichy representatives. In March, 1942, in the middle of the plebiscite campaign about conscription, the Information Service made known the contents of a report from French de Gaulle supporters living in Ottawa about the anti-conscription campaign in French Canada, which combined anti-communist and anglophobic propaganda to inspire the ‘no’ side in the plebiscite campaign. The latter was organized and led by André Laurendeau, an active, leading member of the Ordre de Jacques-Cartier. According to the Gaullists’ report, Ricard, the Vichy consul in Quebec City, was deeply involved with the anti-conscription campaign. The group which opposed conscription called itself the Ligue pour la défense du Canada. Part of the Ligue’s argument was that Canada itself was in danger in World War II. This should be Canada’s priority, not sending troops from an over-extended colony for the defence of the mother-country. Gaullists complained that “Quebec was ripe for Nazi propaganda”, owing to the anti-conscription campaign of the Ligue. Furthermore, the attitude of the Ligue was also dangerous since:

The absurdity of the idea that Canada can be defended exclusively on Canadian soil is apparent at first sight and certainly of German origin. All military critics agree that a war like this one can be won only by taking the offensive… All the armies and all the fleets in the new world combined would protect the immense length of our coasts in such a weak way, that an enemy concentration on one or more points would not fail to penetrate it. A certain manner of presenting Canada as directly and urgently in danger overreaches the aim, excites the minds and plays into the hand of anti-conscriptionists.

In fact, Vichy actually provided money to the Ligue for its anti-conscription campaign through its consul at Montreal, facts uncovered by the RCMP. Nevertheless, the King government maintained formal relations with Vichy until November, 1942, coincidentally, when the Hull internees were all finally released. Up to this time, the King government was clearly anti-Gaullist. There are several examples of this stance.

In the fall of 1940, J. L. Ralston, Minister of Defence, brought to the attention of Lapointe an analysis of pro-Vichy propaganda in Quebec, written by a French-Canadian officer working in military intelligence. The officer recommended the creation of a committee of French-Canadians who would promote the Gaullist cause in Canada, an idea which Lapointe rejected, a position which received the specific approval of King. Still in the Fall of 1940, French citizens living in Quebec City wanted to form a Canadian, Gaullist group, as already existed in the U.S., called France Forever/France quand même. Reforming journalist Jean-Charles Harvey was a member of the American group, and he promoted its views in his own writings. A Quebec City notary, Victor Morin, was engaged to determine if Lapointe would permit formation of the group, despite the continuing diplomatic relations of the Canadian government with Vichy. Lapointe responded that "it was not a good idea to encourage any movement that would have the effect of dividing French-Canadians into supporters of de Gaulle versus supporters of the Pétain government.” When Morin added later that the committee would be limited to French citizens, and would not include French-Canadians, Lapointe still responded with a curt ‘no’, with no further explanation. 

A similar request from French residents of Montreal to permit the creation and  incorporation of a Gaullist organization was also rejected in the fall of 1941. In his letter of September 29, 1941, Norman Robertson explained to the deputy minister of Secretary of State, E. H. Coleman:

I do not think that it would be helpful at the present juncture to take any formal step in the way of incorporation of a Free French organization, however representative its membership and admirable its objectives might be, which would be likely to precipitate further debate about the continued reception of the French minister in Ottawa, and force a premature definition of the status of General de Gaulle and the Free French movement.

In the summer of 1940, Great Britain asked Canada to train French aviators for the Gaullist forces, using the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which King indeed had claimed was going to be Canada’s most effective contribution to the British war effort. The King Cabinet refused the request, citing public opinion in French Canada, as well as the costs involved. The request was eventually approved under British pressure, although the British had to pay the costs of training the French aviators. In the fall of 1940, Cabinet rejected de Gaulle’s request to conduct recruitment efforts in Canada, “which would divide Canadians into those who supported Vichy from those who supported de Gaulle.”

These examples demonstrate that the aim of Cabinet was to minimize public debate about the Vichy/de Gaulle controversy, all the while maintaining official recognition of Vichy since, according to Lapointe, French-Canadians did support the Pétain government. Lapointe’s argument, however, was only valid for the petty-bourgeoisie, as organized in the Ordre de Jacques-Cartier membership and groups, including the Ligue pour la défense du Canada. Moreover, Lapointe was a close, personal friend and admirer of Pétain; the extent of Ordre documents in Lapointe’s archives in the National Archives of Canada leads one to suggest that Lapointe himself was a member, perhaps even a leader, of the Ordre de Jacques-Cartier.

In November, 1942, Canada finally broke off diplomatic relations with Vichy, but only after playing diplomatic games of peek-a-boo with the Allies who had been pressuring Canada, hitherto unsuccessfully, to terminate relations with Vichy. The Vichy consuls were only asked to leave in May, 1942, after the conscription plebiscite. The Vichy ambassador’s departure followed later that year, once again, even as the last of Hull internees was being released in November.

- Michael Martin, The Red Patch: Political Imprisonment in Hull, Quebec during World War 2. Self-published, 2007. p. 93-96

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

Administration of the Defence of Canada Regulations (DOCR)

"Administering the DOCR proved to be a boon to the careers of RCMP men. At the start of World War II, the Intelligence Section of the RCMP was a six-man operation at headquarters, attached to the Criminal Investigation Branch. By 1943, there were now 98 in the headquarters operation of the Intelligence Section, with important increases in the field: twenty more men working in Toronto, nineteen in Montreal and nine in Vancouver.

The effect of World War II on the overall size of the RCMP was also impressive. The RCMP force was immediately increased by 700 at the start of the war. On June 6, 1940, the list of police officers who could enforce the DOCR was expanded to include all RCMP officers from the rank of inspector and up, and officers of similar rank in the provincial police forces in Quebec and Ontario, as well as chiefs of police in municipalities with populations of more than 10,000. There were still not enough police. 

On June 24, 1940, RCMP Commissioner Wood wrote Ernest Lapointe to complain that he could no longer meet demand, especially in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Wood went so far as to express concern for the health of his men, so busy and over-extended were they. So, on August 30, 1940, authority to administer the DOCR was extended once again to include almost all police officers in Canada, whether at federal, provincial, or municipal levels.

One of the products of the increased RCMP workload were the monthly security bulletins issued by the Intelligence Section to senior federal officials and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Right from the beginning, some of the recipients of the bulletins were wary of the value of the reports. Jack Pickersgill, second-in-command in the PMO, analyzed the bulletin of October 30, 1939. His comments reveal some of the deficiencies in the RCMP analysis; they bear summarizing:

no distinctions between fact and hearsay;

no distinctions between subversive doctrine, and legitimate social and political criticism;

obsession with Communists, to the exclusion of information about Nazis or Fascists;

no evidence of sabotage or espionage directed against Canada;

no co-ordination with military intelligence, censorship officials, immigration officials, or External Affairs;

police spying on law-abiding Canadians, thus making the police political censors;

lack of capacity and training for real intelligence work directed against the real enemy.

Also wrote Pickersgill:

It is more likely that there are secret, German agents in the country. From a casual reading of these ‘Intelligence Bulletins’, one would scarcely realize that Canada was at war with Germany; there is not the slightest hint that anything is being done in the way of intelligent and well-directed anti-espionage work.

Pickersgill suggested that an intelligence branch be created within Justice, to whom the RCMP would report, in order to co-ordinate government intelligence efforts. 

Nonetheless, King, Lapointe, and the Justice Department continued to support the work of the RCMP in spite of criticism both internal and external to the government. When the tide turned against the government’s policies of repression of the left, the RCMP ceased the widespread distribution of security bulletins. One shouldn’t expect just administration of a law that is itself unjust.

The violations of normal, legal protections under the DOCR might also accrue to another element, however, which explains why internees were never explained the full nature of charges against them. Some information obtained by the RCMP was retrieved secretly from informers within the Communist Party, sources that had to be protected were they to continue to be useful. There is a series of letters that establishes the policy of the RCMP and government about this secret information. In the first of these letters, the Justice deputy minister wrote to the RCMP:

If you have evidence which has been obtained through the medium of a police secret agent, the identity of whom it would be extremely undesirable to disclose, then I suggest that you are not compelled to, and should not produce such evidence, even by withholding it you may have little in the way of other evidence to support the order for internment. The recommendation of the tribunal is only a recommendation and not a judgement, and the release of the appellant after the finding of the tribunal is a matter which is in the absolute discretion of the Minister of Justice, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, order the further internment or the release of the appellant. In cases where you do not disclose confidential information to the tribunal, you should notify the Department so that all the facts may be brought before the Minister when called upon to act in the matter.

When the RCMP asked if the instructions about secret information were to apply to enemy subjects, as well as to British subjects, Lapointe responded in the affirmative, adding that he would consult with the RCMP before freeing internees. At least, some of the explanation for the functioning of the DOCR, therefore, lies in the government’s protection of its espionage network among communists.

In fact, during the 1920s, an RCMP Staff-Sergeant, John Leopold, had become a highly placed informer within the Communist Party. Leopold, who used the pseudonym ‘Jack Esselwein’, had provided  evidence in 1931 that permitted the government to prosecute Tim Buck and seven of his  leading colleagues in the Party. During World War II, we know of at least one other RCMP informer within the Party, although there probably were more. A certain ‘Koyich’ was active in Alberta, a fact uncovered by Patrick Lenihan, a Calgarian, and Ben Swankey, from Edmonton, both of whom were interned in Hull."

- Michael Martin, The Red Patch: Political Imprisonment in Hull, Quebec during World War 2. Self-published, 2007. p. 76-80

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Guthrie Charges Terrorism By Labor Defence League,” Border Cities Star. February 15, 1933. Page 7. ---- Opposes Repeal Of Section 98 In House Debate ---- Minister of Justice Says Threat Telegrams Sent Him About Communists in Portsmouth Penitentiary Riots --- Woodsworth, Lapointe Protest --- Declare Criminal Code Can Be Used Against Labor; Intimidation of Hall Owners By Police Is Alleged === By Staff Reporter of The Border Cities Star OTTAWA, Feb. 15. Sponsored by the Canadian Labor Defence League, a wave of terrorism directed against constituted authority is sweeping over Canada, it was charged in the House of Commons Tuesday evening by Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Justice. 

He made the statement in a speech opposing a bill of J. S. Woodsworth, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation leader, calling for the repeal of Section 98 of the Criminal Code, the section relating to unlawful associations. Mr. Guthrie finally moved a six-month hoist for the bill, as a means of putting it on the shelf for the remainder of the session. 

Telegrams pouring in on him, threatening violence to himself and officials of his department if any harm came to the Communist prisoners in Portsmouth penitentiary, were told of by Mr. Guthrie. Petitions bearing thousands of foreign names, allegedly circulated by the Labor Defence League in Toronto, have also been received. 

Only for Wrong-Thinkers NO right-thinking person, no person who has a right to citizenship, declared the minister, has anything to fear from the section. It is directed only against those who advocate force, intimidation and subversion of government, he said. 

The Labor Defense League, he sa'd. began its activities only when the Communist Party was declared an illegal association by the courts of Canada. Since then it had been very active in agitating against constituted authority. Within 24 hours after the riots at Portsmouth, he said, telegrams had been received by him, warning him that he would be held responsible for any harm which might come to the Communist prisoners because of the rioting. They appeared before any mention of the Red prisoners had been made publicly in connection with the disturbance. 

Though the wires came from all parts of Canada, said Mr. Guthrie, he believed they were all framed at the league's headquarters in Toronto. They warned him that thousands of Communists both in Canada and the United States were watching his actions. 

Outside Affiliations "I know," said Mr. Guthrie, "that the Labor Defense League and the Communist Party have their affiliations outside Canada. I know that from telegrams which I have received threatening myself. I have been told that 150,000 Communists in New York are watching me. and I forget how many in Chicago all telegrams framed, I submit, in the City of Toronto. 

"Another thing I will state In the House, incidentally, and that is that no sooner did the disturbance take place in Kingston Penitentiary than I was flooded with telegrams from every quarter of Canada, and I think all engineered from the City of Toronto. I mention these things. Mr. Speaker, to impress the House with the necessity of maintaining this law as it stands on the statute books today." 

Listing Sympathizers Against the Labor Defense League Mr. Guthrie further levelled the insinuations that its Toronto offices apparently were compiling for their own use lists of persons thought to be sympathetic. 

He charged that petitions circulated by the Defense League which had been Inadvertently sent to himself at Ottawa bore the warning to their signatories, all of whom were foreign-born, that the completed document should not be sent to the Department of Justice but to League headquarters in Toronto, where the names and addresses would be "registered and compiled." 

Mr. Guthrie, in opening his speech. stated that Section 98 became part of the law in 1918 when he and Mr. Lapointe both were members of a special committee of the House which drafted it. That committee, he recalled, had passed the final draft by a majority of only one and the House had then adopted the bill. 

The law now had been in operation 15 years, but the Minister could call to mind onlv two prosecutions under it. One had been in 1919 after the Winnipeg strike and the other had been in Toronto a little more than a year ago when eight men had been sentenced to Portsmouth penitentiary under the statute. The Toronto convictions had been confirmed by the Ontario Supreme Court which had found the Communist Party an unlawful association and had held that all Communists therefore came within the repressive terms of the law. 

Denies Labor Target Mr. Guthrie denied that the section was aimed at labor unions. These organizations protested against it, he said, but never had a union been prosecuted under it nor was there any intention of so doing. The Communist Party, he said, had been found unlawful under the statute because that organization advocated the use of force, violence and intimidation to change the laws and to subvert or overthrow the government. 

In 1918 and for the next few years after the law was enacted, there had been considerable unrest in Canada, Mr. Guthrie said. There ensued a period in which unrest all but vanished, and during which time there had been no occasion for the law. But that period had ended in 1928.

 "I am not overstating the case when I say that I have thousands and thousands of telegrams." said Mr. Guthrie. "X do not now acknowledge receipt of them. I merely hand them over to the mounted police In order that a record may be kept of the names and addresses of these people, and I make that statement so that these parties mav know what I do with them. 

“Some of these petitions said that they must not be sent to the Minister of Justice but to the head office in Toronto where the names may be registered and compiled so that the department of Justice may not know the names and addresses of those who signed them." 

All Foreign Names Not a single name on these petitions, Mr. Guthrie said, was Anglo-Saxon or French. The names were all foreign, many of them unpronounceable. 

The Canadian Labor Defence League, Mr. Guthrie believed, was closely affiliated with another organization called the "Friends of the Soviet Society." This organization was particularly active in Ontario and the West. It also "favored" him with its petitions and communications. 

"I know from facts compiled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police," the minister continued, "that this society is operating in almost every corner of Western Canada." 

Its literature, he charged, was of a "most scandalous and most seditious" nature. "I submit," he declared, "that if ever there was a time when it was necessary to pass such a law as this, this is the time to maintain it." Loud Conservative applause greeted this declaration. 

Section 98. he said, was a hinderance to no right-thinking person. It placed no restriction on any citizen who should be allowed to continue his citizenship. "Any man," he concluded, "who does not advocate force, violence or terrorism need have no fear of it." 

"If there was reason to pass such a section in 1918." said the minister, "there is certainly reason to keep such a section in force in 1933. 

"There is no need for me to occupy the time of the House in stating that there is unrest in Canada today of a very serious nature. We know there are a number of very dangerous organizations operating through the length and breadth of Canada today. 

"I was very glad to hear my honorable friend (Mr. Woodsworth) describe one such organization, the Labor Defence League, as a subsidiary of the Communist Party. I am sufficiently aware of the activities of the league to say that it is a Communist society of Canada operating under another name. I have evidence in my department which would convince any man that my statement is correct. 

"Let ms tell you. Mr. Speaker, that throughout Canada that Labor Defence Leacue is operating today in a most insidious manner. Where it receives its financial support, I do not know. I can only surmise, but financial support it certainly has."

Mr. Woodsworth The Communists in prison today, declared Mr. Woodsworth. In moving second reading of his bill, are not there for anything they have actually done. They are being punished only for the beliefs they hold. This, to his mind, is the iniquitous feature of the section he seeks to repeal. 

"May I point out," he said, "that it is not an absolutely novel thing for men to hold that undsr certain circumstances the use of force is justifiable. A great many writers on law have held that, in certain instances, the use of force is ethically justifiable, and is the last resort of every free man. I am not taking that position. I simply point out that It is a well-understood position by any one who has read anything of law whatever." 

The section, said Mr. Woodsworth, is entirely too broad in its wording. It refers only to these who advocate the use of "force." This might be construed to mean "moral force." The section conceivably might be used against any labor union calling a strike. 

Forfeiting Property The provision for forfeiting the property of illegal organizations was also attacked. There is no provision, said the Labor leader, for proof that the property belongs to such an organization. It may be seized if anyone suspects that it does so belong. 

The whole section, he maintained, violates the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. 

There is a presumption of guilt from the first. The law makes anyone liable to punishment who even attends a meeting of an illegal association. 

Owners of halls may be prosecuted under the section, Mr. Woodsworth pointed out, if they rent their halls to such associations, and in many cases they might not know whether the organization were legal or not. 

The police, he charged. In some cities have already begun a campaign of intimidation against owners of public halls on the strength of this section.

Prosecutions may be launched on the suspicion that a breach of the section is about to be committed. There is no need for proof of that the offence has actually been committed. 

Literature Rule The provisions relating to literature of illegal associations were also attacked. In the library of Parliament, Mr. Woodsworth charged, are many books possession of which would make a man liable to punishment. Officials of the post-office and customs department are turned into "a set of spies" by the section. 

"I do not know that it is necessary for me to say that I am not an advocate of force," said Mr. Woodsworth. "I have repeatedly in the House opposed the use of force, and I shall continue to do so, but I do not believe we should be unfair even to those who hold the other view, and certainly I do not think we should proceed to convict men for simply holding certain beliefs, unless they commit some overt act. 

"I have no interest whatever in the Communist Party as such. In all our recent elections I have been opposed by the Communist Party. Some of my colleagues think I am very stupid to do anything at all that would give the Communist Party a chance of carrying on in this country. I am not urging the repeal of this legislation in order that there should be a free advocacy of the use of force in Canada. I do say, however, that under other sections of the Criminal Code there is ample provision that, if a man advocates the use of force, he may be arrested, tried and convicted, and then, if he is a foreigner, he may be deported.' But I protest against this legislation which may so readily lead to abuses."

Mr. Lapointe Hon. Ernest Lapointe. former minister of Justice, talked the bill out. He supported Mr. Woodsworth in seeking to have the section repealed, pointing to the fact that he had, while in office, introduced bills to repeal it on five different occasions. Each time, the bill had passed the House but had been turned down by the Senate. On the last occasion, the bill had received the unanimous support of the House. 

"If it is a crime now to introduce such a bill," he said, "it was a crime five years ago. and every member of this House who allowed that bill to go through without voting against it was a party to that crime." 

Mr. Lapointe's chief argument was that there is no need today for such a section. He referred to various sections of the criminal code which, he maintained, provide adequate defence of the existing order of government. Sedition, he said, has always been a crime under the common law, and he referred to an unsuccessful attempt in England to define it in some such terms as are contained in section 98. It had been thought best there, he said, to leave it under common law, and he agreed with this view. 

"My honorable friend," he said, "refers to petitions signed with foreign names. The opponents of this section are not foreigners." 

"Certainly they are." interjected Mr. Guthrie. "I have thousands of them." 

Mr. Lapointe, however, maintained that there had been much opposition to the section from respected leaders of Canadian labor unions. The Canadian Trades and Labor Congress had repeatedly protested against it. and Tom Moore, president of that body, had been one of its chief opponents. The bill will probably come up again for discussion.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Under such conditions, it is hardly surprising that the first, serious efforts to obtain the liberation of the [Communist] Hull internees, or even to improve the conditions of the internment, came from the wives and families of the internees. Six wives first tried to visit their men in Hull prison on September 21, 1941. Led by Jenny Freed, the women had hitchhiked from Montreal. A second group tried once again, still unsuccessfully, on October 19, 1941. Each time Major Green refused the women entry, although internees and wives were able to see and talk to each other from a distance. After the second, attempted ‘break-in’ by wives of the internees, Green installed a barbed wire fence  around the prison, so that men and women could not exchange written notes.

Nevertheless, Norman Freed still managed to get a letter secretly to Jenny, using the services of Freed’s lawyer, J.L. Cohen. Jenny then sent the letter to the Ottawa Citizen, so that the internees’ petition to Mackenzie King was published on October 18, 1941. 

Editor, Citizen:

The enclosed is a copy of a letter which the anti-fascists interned at Hull jail sent to the Prime Minister, and which I think would be of interest to your readers and all those interested in seeing that justice prevails in our country.

— MRS. NORMAN FREED, Toronto, Oct. 16, 1941.

September 10, 1941 The Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Prime Minister:

At the Hull Jail, within sight of the Parliament Buildings across the Ottawa river, eighty anti-Fascist Canadians are being held in a concentration camp.

We have been denied our liberty, separated from our loved ones, and prevented from carrying out our duties as Canadian citizens, some of us for as  long as fifteen months, under the arbitrary powers granted the minister of Justice, the Right Honorable Ernest Lapointe, by the Defence of Canada Regulations.

Our appeals against this injustice have gone unheeded. At the hearings, no charges were presented that we were in any way guilty or even suspected of sabotage, spying, or subversive activity. The only excuses for our incarceration that have been presented to us have been that “representations have been made” that we had been members of the Communist party of Canada, or some other labour organization, or that we had associated with communists. The particulars supplied consisted of references to trade union and anti-fascist activities in the past, as far back as twenty years ago. The hearings constitute a recounting of crimes on our part, such as trying to improve the living standard of our fellow-Canadians, defending civil liberties, or urging the Canadian people to fight against fascism! Not one of our number has been charged with a single overt act; in not a single case has reason been shown why any should be imprisoned in the interest of the security of the state.

We have presented several petitions to the minister of Justice, declaring our loyalty to Canada, our support of the maximum war effort against the fascist states, our support of your government in all measures to carry the just war against fascism to victory, and our views in favour of democratic unity of the whole Canadian people to these ends. We do not know whether these petitions actually reached the minister, only that no action has so far been taken to affect our release.

Therefore, although we are aware of the multitudinous responsibilities that claim every minute of your time, we, nevertheless, take the liberty of addressing this appeal to you as the head of the state (sic), feeling that your personal intervention will serve to right these injustices…

Despite our physical isolation, we have never allowed our personal plight to spiritually separate us from the desires and aspirations of our fellow- Canadians and the world-wide struggle against fascism. We share with them all their trials and tribulations, and all their hopes and determination for victory.

We are aware that the turning point in the war is upon us, that the future is being decided on the battle fronts of Eastern Europe, that the glorious struggle waged by the U.S.S.R., its army and peoples, together with the people and armies of the British Commonwealth, in which Canada is participating, will determine the whole course and duration of the war, the security and freedom of all humanity, and of Canada herself. We know that it is exactly now, and in the momentous months to come, that our country is called upon to exert its utmost to bring victory.

We are convinced that the answer to Hitler’s and Mussolini’s totalitarian war is a democratic people’s war, uniting the anti-fascist forces both internationally and within each country against Nazi barbarism. Stern suppression of fascist groups and intrigues within the country, the greatest extension of democratic rights to the common people, determined struggle against war profiteering and exploitation on the part of selfish interests, the boldest rallying of the common people for fullest participation in both the production and military branches of the war effort— these are the guarantees of Canada’s full contribution to the epochal struggle which has engulfed the entire world…

We urge you, in the interests of the democratic war program, to use your office to order our release from the concentration camp, so that we could do our best in helping to rally the Canadian people to contribute together with ourselves, our all to the democratic war effort, to provide guns, tanks, planes and munitions to the armies of Britain, the U.S.S.R. and their allies, for all-out economic and military participation in the war to defeat Hitler Germany.

We hope that you will heed our appeal and assist our return to freedom, to our families, to our citizen duties as loyal Canadians.

On behalf of the imprisoned, anti-fascist Canadians,

Respectfully yours,

T. G. McMANUS Camp Spokesman

In punishment for the transgression of having smuggled out this letter, Major Green threw Freed and McManus into solitary confinement. In retaliation, the two men threatened to go on a hunger strike. Other internees stopped writing their wives, who then peppered the Justice Department with questions about their husbands. The Army was then obliged to order Green to end the solitary confinement of Freed and McManus."

- Michael Martin, The Red Patch: Political Imprisonment in Hull, Quebec during World War 2. Self-published, 2007. p. 176-182

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

Opposition within the Federal Administration to the Defence of Canada Regulations (DOCR)

As already suggested, the provisions for arbitrary detention were controversial within the federal Public Service. The opinions of the RCMP and Defence, and ultimately King and Lapointe, were countered by those of External Affairs officials, doubly important since King was directly responsible for External Affairs, the Prime  Minister’s Office, and even by some senior officials within Justice and Finance.

In June,  1938, officials in Justice, including deputy minister Plaxton, argued to Lapointe against the arbitrary detention provisions. Their argument was unsuccessful. The Justice officials had compared arbitrary detention to a totalitarian practice in Germany and Italy known as preventive detention, whereby critics of the government were arrested. Plaxton called the arbitrary detention provisions of the DOCR “…violently repugnant to the fundamental constitutional rights of a British subject.” Furthermore, the Criminal Code already outlawed sedition, and naturalization certificates for Europeans easily could be revoked, if necessary. 

After the DOCR was adopted in September of 1939, a sub-committee chaired by External Affairs was made responsible for application of the regulations to Fascists and Nazi sympathizers. Norman Robertson, assistant under-secretary was responsible for this sub-committee, and was succeeded in this role by Lester Pearson when Robertson was named to replace the deceased O. D. Skelton as under-secretary of External Affairs. Justice chaired a sub-committee dealing with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and communists. Robertson and Pearson were great reformers, and were typical of the men who worked in  External Affairs during this era. The Department had done much to increase the autonomy of Canada within the British Commonwealth, indeed, even to create and define the Commonwealth. External Affairs officials enjoyed considerable, public prestige. 

Nevertheless, their political boss, Mackenzie King usually followed the advice of his Quebec lieutenant, Ernest Lapointe, minister of Justice, when differences of opinion emerged. These differences emerged right from the beginning. In July, 1939, the sub-committee studying emergency legislation requirements reported to the government about the fundamental conflict between External Affairs and the Justice Department.

It is felt by some members of the committee that persons of hostile internationalist affiliation may attempt to impede the war effort of the nation  by the dissemination of news or propaganda or by other means, and that it is, therefore, necessary to provide for a means of taking swift and effective action against such persons, whether they be British subject or aliens. Other members feel that it is an unnecessary interference with the liberty of the subject.

Just before the war, the RCMP proposed a list of 641 names of possible internees, all leftists, ninety percent of which were Europeans. Robertson was beside himself. Where were the names of the fascists? The RCMP had no such list. Robertson consulted writings by Fred Rose, then leader of the young communists in Quebec, who had researched and written about the subject. Eventually, Robertson was able to produce a list of 325 Nazi sympathizers among German-Canadians.

In the fall of 1939, Lapointe proposed regulation 39A to prohibit publication and distribution of documents which might hinder the prosecution of the war or the security of the state. John Read, legal counsel for External Affairs, summarized the unsuccessful opposition of External Affairs to Lapointe’s proposal.

The reasons advanced for these drastic regulations presumably are that the communist movement is taking part in an international campaign under the control of Moscow against the British Empire.

If this were true, existing laws against sedition would suffice. Read added further that the proposed regulation was well conceived if its aim was to support a Nazi or Fascist revolution in Canada. Read’s document was an impassioned plea in favour of democracy.

Already, free discussion in Canada is blanketed and discouraged by censorship, by colonialism, by the docility of our people… We are called  upon by this Order-in-Council to submit to the police methods of totalitarian states. Instead of a bill of rights, we have a string of ‘verbotens’. In fighting for the liberty of Poles and Czechs, we are to sacrifice the liberty of Canadians. After revising section 98 and in most cases, condemning the Padlock Law, we are to enact far more sweeping restrictions.

After the German invasion of the U.S.S.R. in June, 1941, the RCMP’s anti-communism wore out its welcome in the Prime Minister’s Office. In 1942, King’s Principal Secretary, W. J. Turnbull, wrote to his boss complaining about the RCMP’s red-hunting. 

Apparently, there are in the… police, some men like the notorious [staff] Sergeant [John] Leopold, whose jobs seem to depend on continuing to uncover Bolshevik plots… I would think that a change of policy might well be indicated to them [the police], with Russia a valiant ally.

Sources of Anti-communism Support, therefore, for the DOCR within the federal administration was not unanimous. The forces countering the DOCR were significant: the Prime Minister’s Office; External Affairs; sometimes even senior officials in the Justice Department and in the Department of Finance were offended by the breaches in traditions of British law contained in the DOCR. They were ranged against Defence and the RCMP, King and Lapointe, as well as the federal Department of Munitions and Supply, of which the minister was C. D. Howe.

The RCMP’s clumsiness in administering the DOCR made many senior officials wary, so that the federal police’s sway eventually was diminished. There was another element to the work of RCMP, however, which continued to grow  throughout the war: fingerprinting of ordinary Canadians, as part of wartime security screening. Once considered odious by most Canadians and applicable only to the criminal element, fingerprinting spread to include one in five Canadians during the war. The million Canadians who served in the military, as well as merchant seamen and certain public servants were fingerprinted by the military or by the RCMP. Moreover, by 1945, another million Canadians who worked in the 500 or so companies that had government procurement contracts, by order of Howe’s Department of Munitions and Supply, and in public utilities or oil refineries and even distilleries, had been subjected to fingerprinting, thus, to control by the RCMP. Fingerprints of about 2.3 million civilians and military  people were collected from Canada’s 1941 population of only 11.5 million."

- Michael Martin, The Red Patch: Political Imprisonment in Hull, Quebec during World War 2. Self-published, 2007. p. 80-83

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Convict McCrea Raised Great Many Objections," Kingston Whig-Standard. June 19, 1933. Page 3. ---- Wanted Trial Postponed, Venue Changed and a Number of Out-of-Town Witnesses Called- -Judge Refused --- Convict William McCrea, charged with being a participant in the penitentiary riots, asked for a ten day's extension of time in which to prepare his case when brought before Judge E. Madden this morning. McCrea claimed that he had not been given access to the law books or n opportunity to afternoon although he had made application a week ago. When Judge Madden pointed out that it was impossible to delay the Court any longer McCrea pleaded not guilty. The accused turned down an offer to be represented by counsel and asked that he be allowed to plead his own case with the assistance of another convict who had a working knowledge of law. His Honor confered with the Crown Attorney and then gave McCrea per-

McCrea Objected As the jury were called to be sworn McCrea raised objection, saying that some of the jurors might have friends or relatives working in the penitentiary and might be prejudiced. Col. Keiller MacKay pointed out that the accused had had the opportunity of being tried without jury and had declined.

McCrea, as the first juror was called started to ask him if he had any relatives working in the penitentiary, but was immediately stopped by His Honor.

"Then can I ask for a change, of venue?" asked McCrea.

"That cannot be done," replied Judge Madden.

"But I don't believe it would be possible to get a jury here who are not prejudiced," continued McCrea. "I have not had the opportunity to build up my defence as I am not in the main penitentiary."

Col. MacKay pointed out that the accused had had an interview with Major Clark of Windsor in April and with W. F. Nickle in June.

"We tried to get Major Clark to defend us," said McCrea, "and were prepared to have a fund from the inmates for our defence, but the Department of Justice refused to allow us to subscribe."

Judge Madden told the accused the court had nothing to do with the rulings of the Department of Justice.

The swearing in of the jury was proceeded with; McCrea challenging twelve. The jury was as follows: Thomas Blomely. Cecil Baxter, Wilfred Bennett, John Burns, John J. Barrett, Franklin Cowan, Matthew Cox, Samuel McKane, R. T. Hitchcock, Charles Davey, James Foster, Robert Gibson.

Before the case itself proceeded, considerable delay was occasioned through the request of the accused to have certain witnesses called. Judge Madden ruled that witnesses living in the city would be summoned for the accused, but not those out of town.

"I take exception to that ruling," said McCrea. "Those witnesses are absolutely essential for my defence."

"Your request at this time is made too late," replied His Honor. "You had ample opportunity to have your witnesses summoned."

"I don't know why I can't get examine his witnesses until yesterday them."

"Well, your application is too late and there is no use arguing over it," Judge Madden then made an order for the summoning as witnesses for the defence, the following: Warden Megloughlin. Rev. Dr. W. T. Kings- ley, M. J. Walsh, Frank Doyle and W. M. Archibald. He refused to issue an order for the summoning as witnesses of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Hon. Ernest Lapointe. Gen. D. M, Ormond, Gen. W. S. Hughes, Gilbert Smith and J. C. Ponsford.

McCrea, after Colonel MacKay had reviewed the case for the jury, and when Guard W. H. Godwin was called to the stand, asked for copy of Godwin's evidence in the trials of last week. Judge Madden said that the evidence has not been transcribed and McCrea reluctantly agreed to do without it.

"I am in a peculiar position," said McCrea. "In all criminal minds it is believed that the Crown prosecutor is out for all the convictions he can get. Colonel MacKay prosecuted me in Windsor when I was given fifteen years.'

"That does not influence the Crown here," said Judge Madden. "I am sure Colonel MacKay will assist you in every way possible. His duty is to lay all the evidence before the court and jury and not primarily to secure a conviction."

Guard Godwin Guard Godwin told of extra precautions taken on the afternoon of October 17, including the locking of the doors of the shops in the shop dome. He described the events of the afternoon, which started with the coming out of the "asylum" building of a number of convicts, who went to the shop dome. He figured that at least 100 of the 300 convicts congregated in shop-dome were armed with axe-handles, hammer-handles, crowbars and other weapons.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Section 98 Again Under Verbal Fire,” Brantford Expositor. February 15, 1933. Page 1 & 2.  ---- Woodsworth's Bill to Repeal Section Has Advanced As Far As Second Reading But Is Unlikely to Get Further — Supported By Lapointe — “Dangerous Organizations” At Work Guthrie Retorts ---- OTTAWA, Feb. 15— (CP)— Section 98 of the Criminal Code possibly the only section of the code the average Canadian knows of by number, is under fire in Parliament again. It has been under fire nearly every session for more than 10 years and outside of Parliament has been denounced by labor and other organizations of various shades of radicalism. 

This year the bill to repeal the section sponsored by J. S. Woodsworth (Labor Winnipeg North Centre) has advanced as far as second reading but is unlikely to go any further. Opposition to the measure was voiced last night by Hon. Hugh Guthrie, minister of Justice, after the Winnipeg Laborite had argued for repeal of the section which makes it an offense to be a member of an organization working for the overthrow of constituted authority. 

WOODSWORTH’S ARGUMENT In arguing for repeal Mr Woodsworth offered no justification for the activities of Communists He said he was opposed to forcible overthrow of government. The Communists now serving in penitentiary, however, had been convicted under section 98. These man had been guilty of no overt act and he did not believe a man should be punished for the views he holds or the thoughts he expresses. 

SUPPORT FROM LAPOINTE Support for Mr Woods worth came from Hon. Ernest Lapointe, former minister of Justice, who attempted to secure the repeal of the section while he was in office. He believed other sections of the code amply provided for seditious activities.

DANGEROUS ORGANIZATIONS If there was any reason for enacting the section in 1918, said Mr. Guthrie there was abundant reason for retaining it under present disturbed conditions. There was unrest in Canada to-day and “a number of dangerous organizations” were at work. The Labor Defense League was operating In “a most Insidious manner." It was closely affiliated with "The Friends of Russia Society.” 

The numerous petitions and personal threats he had received, said Mr. Guthrie, convinced him of the intensity of the activity of then organizations. At one time he had looked upon repeal of the section with indifference but now he felt it should stand. 

“We know that there is unrest in the Dominion of Canada to-day of a very serious nature,” Mr. Guthrie declared, in moving that the bill be given a six months’ hoist. He referred particularly to the Canadian Labor Defense League. He was sufficiently aware of the activities of that league to know “that it is a Communist society of Canada operating under another name.” 

The minister told the House of the threatening telegrams he had received of the great batch of petitions in connection with the imprisonments of the eight Communists and the riots at Kingston penitentiary.”

"I know that the Canadian Labor Defense League and the Communist association have their affiliations outside the Dominion of Canada," said Mr. Guthrie. "I know that from telegrams, which I have received threatening myself. I have been told that 150,000 Communists in New York are watching me and I forget how many hundreds of thousands in Chicago" — all telegrams framed, I believe, in the City of Toronto.” 

Mr. Lapointe recalled that he had on five occasions introduced legislation to repeal the statute and thus  the House of Commons had always supported the bill. During the session of 1930, nobody on the opposite side of the House had opposed it. 

"If it is a crime to-night to favor the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, all hon. members who sat opposite me in 1930 and supported the bill introduced then — because they did not oppose it— were guilty of a similar crime”. 

The cadet services appropriation for $300,000 encountered squalls. Although the vote is $60.000 less than the item for last year, the appropriation had not passed at adjournment following an hour's discussion. 

ANNUAL ATTACK Agnes Macphail (Prog., South East Grey) made her annual attack. But her move found opposition. The discussion produced a statement by Hon. D. M. Sutherland, minister of national defence, that with economy ever before its eyes, the Government would do all in its power in the way of reducing future contractual obligations. Prime Minister R. B. Bennett had carefully explained the operation of the Lord Strathcona fund for cadet public school training regarding which Dominion payments arose. The stage was then all set for the passing of the vote but Vincent Dupuis (Lib., Laprairie-Napiervllle) arose a few minutes to 11 o'clock and held the vote as it was about to be approved.

Repeating her objections, voiced in previous years, Miss Macphail told while she was opposed to cadet training, she was not opposed to discipline, provided it was self-discipline. Cadet training was a sort of rigid regimentation. She claimed which discouraged thought and should be done away with, along with many other features of the present educational system. F. G. Sanderson (Lib. South Perth) would not go so far as Miss Macphail’s motion called for but he believed that If there were any items in the estimates that might be left out during the present difficult times the cadet item was one of them.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“General Ormond Is Asked To Apologize For Statements,” Kingston Whig-Standard. February 22, 1933. Page 3.  ---- Strong protest, in the form of a carefully prepared resolution against statements made by General D. M. Ormond, Superintendent of Penitentiaries, in his report of the recent riots at the Kingston Penitentiary, with particular reference to remarks in connection with the private soldier, was voiced at a general meeting of the Canadian Legion, Branch No. 9, on Tuesday night. The business of the meeting was confined to the resolution passed, which was enthusiastically endorsed by the membership of the Branch. 

The resolution copies of which have already been forwarded to the proper authorities is as follows: — 

"That the Kingston Branch No. 9, Canadian Legion, of the British Empire Service League, has read with regret the insulting and ill-founded remarks of Superintendent of Penitentiaries D. M. Ormond, as reported in The Kingston Whig-Standard on February 7th, on page 10, which reads as follows: ---

"Shortly after the end of the late war, a fair sprinkling of guards were brought into the service who had had military training of some type or other. These, however, were not closely scrutinized and the present time there are many guards who had little or no service that would recommend them to be penitentiary or prison guards, mostly having terminated from three to five years service with the rank of private, which would Indicate that they had reached their limit in military advancement and could not be expected to show a higher standard in civil life; but the fact that they had military training appears to have been accepted as a justification tor handing them a copy of the penitentiary regulation,s giving them a brief talking to, swearing them in, and assigning them to duty."

That the Kingston Branch of the Canadian Legion is able to give the names of doctors, lawyers, merchants, secretaries, bankers, members of Parliament, and men prominent In all walks of civil life today who served in the front line trenches of France and Flanders and other forward positions during the war, who had the honor and distinction of the rank of private, gunner, or sapper. 

That some of the highest awarded by the British Empire given to the private soldier who lived, ate, and slept in the mud, because he believed in his country and the best principles of freedom, and did not enter the war in comfort and high military rank. 

That the Kingston Branch of the Canadian Legion No. 9 feels that the slur on the private soldier whose names are carved in bronze and marble in our memorial hall and city monuments, who paid the supreme sacrifice in the Great War, should not be belittled or made cheap because some who failed to respect the law of the country and probably did not serve overseas find themselves in Kingston Penitentiary and got temporarily out of hand for a day or two. 

That the raids on the German trenches for prisoners and the patrolling of No Man's Land at night was done by what rank of soldier? the private. 

That the Kingston Branch No. 9 Canadian Legion feel that Superintendent D. H. Ormond should make a public apology to relieve the feeling of the widows and mother who lost husbands and sons serving in the Great War with the rank of private. 

That a copy of this resolution be sent to Dr. A. E. Ross, the Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett, the Hon. Hugh Guthrie, the Hon. R. J. Manion; the Hon. Hugh Stewart; the Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King; the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the Hon. Ian Mackenzie; John S. Roper; K. C. Dominion President of the Canadian Legion, and The Kingston Whig-Standard.”

There was a very large attendance at the meeting which was presided over by President Charles T. Simpson. Following the meeting the members attended the billiard tournament between the R. C. H. A. Sergeants and the Canadian Legion.