Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:48:16.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canada's Internal Security

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Lester H. Phillips
Lester H. Phillips*
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Get access

Extract

May 8 and 9, 1945, were officially proclaimed V-E Days in England. On the latter day in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Mr. Herbert Morrison, as Home Secretary, announced certain revocations of the Defence Regulations which had been in effect since the outbreak of war in 1939. He stated that in accordance with the government's declared policy of relaxing war-time restrictions as soon as changes in the war position made this possible or desirable, advance consideration had been given to the question of what Defence Regulations could be dispensed with on the termination of hostilities in Europe, with the result that as of May 9, by order-in-council, eighty-four of the Defence (General) Regulations were revoked entirely and another twenty-five in part. He added that he was happy to announce the sweeping away of these limitations, the relinquishment of the exceptional powers entrusted to the Home Secretary, and the return to traditional British freedoms.

In Canada, on June 14, 1945, an order-in-council was passed establishing an inter-departmental committee to examine the Defence of Canada Regulations “with a view to the revision thereof, including the variation, modification and revocation of the same.” The inter-departmental committee so established was to report to the President of the Privy Council and make such recommendations regarding war-time regulations as it considered appropriate, and consistent with the vigorous prosecution of the war against Japan.

The precipitous surrender of Japan hastened the relaxation of the provisions for Canada's internal security. Twelve of the Defence of Canada Regulations, among which were most of the regulations directly affecting civil liberties, were revoked by order-in-council of August 16, 1945. A month later, on September 14, forty-four of the remaining Defence Regulations were revoked and four others revoked in part or amended. The net result of these two orders-in-council was to remove most of the restrictions on liberties normally enjoyed by individuals in peace-time, but continuing in effect upwards of forty Defence Regulations, including some of those relating to enemy aliens, to protection of property, and to custody of Japanese persons, and those Regulations containing administrative and procedural provisions. It is therefore timely to present a survey of the nature and extent of Canada's Defence Regulations, and to assay their value in preventing sabotage and controlling subversive activity.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 1946 , pp. 18 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The British Defence (General) Regulations and special codes of regulations were promulgated by order-in-council under authority of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1939, with annual renewals.

2 See report in “Question Time in the House of Commons,” (British Speeches of the Day, vol. III, No. 6, 06, 1945), pp. 422–3.Google Scholar

3 P.C. 4136. II Canadian War Orders and Regulations, 1945, no. 12, 06 25, 1945, p. 587.Google Scholar

4 To be composed of representatives of: the Department of Justice, the Privy Council Office, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of National War Services, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

5 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, c. 206 (originally enacted in 1914).

6 P.C. 2483. Proclamations and Orders-in-Council Passed Under the Authority of the War Measures Act, vol I, p. 27.Google Scholar The existence of “apprehended war” was proclaimed September 1, 1939. P.C. 2477, ibid., p. 19. The existence of a state of war was proclaimed September 10, 1939. P.C. 2626, ibid., p. 52.

7 Minute of Council, P.C. 531, March 14, 1938 (marked “confidential”). This committee consisted of fifteen members, with Mr. C.P. Plaxton, now a member of the High Court of Justice of Ontario, as chairman; and Mr. J. F. McNeill, now Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel for the Senate and Acting Director of the Statutory Orders and Regulations Division of the Privy Council Office, as secretary.

8 This “First Report” is printed in The Defence of Canada Regulations (Ottawa, 1939), pp. 2–7.Google Scholar

9 Statement of the Prime Minister, 1940 House of Commons Debates, vol. 1, p. 659.Google Scholar

10 In the United Kingdom, the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts require that all regulations made thereunder be laid before the Parliament, with possible annulment resulting from action by either House within twenty-eight days.

11 For the reports of the annual Select Committees, see Journals of the House of Commons, vol. LXXX, pp. 310–16, 08 1, 1940 Google Scholar; vol. LXXXI, pp. 442-6, June 4, 1941; and vol. LXXXII, pp. 595-6, July 23, 1942.

12 For the explanation given by Justice Minister St. Laurent, see 1942 Debates, vol. V, pp. 5056–7.Google Scholar

13 Noteworthy for their insistent demands upon the government for explanations of the Regulations and their application were four C.C.F. members (Mr. Coldwell, Mr. Douglas, Mr. MacInnis, and Mr. Noseworthy), two Conservative members (Mr. Bence and Mr. Diefenbaker), and the one woman member of the House (then serving under the Unity label), Mrs. Dorise Nielsen.

14 Outstanding among the names of prominent citizens of Toronto who devoted their talents and efforts to this Association is that of Mr. B. K. Sandwell, editor of Saturday Night.

15 Persons of the Japanese race, both aliens and Canadian citizens, were placed under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Security Commission of three members, created in March, 1942. P.C. 1665, March 4, 1942. Proclamations and Orders, vol. VI. p. 167.Google Scholar Under the direction of the Commission the evacuation and relocation of some 23,000 persons of Japanese descent residing on the West Coast was affected. For discussions of the Japanese problem in Canada, see Angus, H. F., “The Effect of the War on Oriental Minorities in Canada” (Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 11, 1941), pp. 506–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and LaViolette, Forrest E., “Japanese Evacuation in Canada” (Far Eastern Survey, vol. XI, 07 27, 1942) pp. 163–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 For annual statistics, and other information on this subject, see Report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the years 1940, 1941, and 1942 (Ottawa, 1940-2).Google Scholar

17 The legality of an order of the Minister was upheld in 1940 when the editor of Kanadsky Gudok moved to have the ban quashed. Yasny v. Lapointe, 48 Man. R. 56, [1940] 2 W.W.R. 372, [1940] 3 D.L.R. 204, 74 C.C.C. 29.

18 The first nine papers banned were in as many different languages.

19 All were banned before the German attack on Soviet Russia, after which time the Canadian Communists became enthusiastic supporters of the Canadian war effort. At least half of all the banned papers have reappeared under new names. See Kirkconnell, Watson, Seven Pillars of Wisdom (Toronto, 1944), pp. 64–8.Google Scholar

20 This is the explanation presented by Secretary of State Casgrain, 1941 Debates, vol. II, p. 1071, 02 27, 1941.Google Scholar

21 See Eggleston, Wilfrid, “Press Censorship” (Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, vol. VII, 08, 1941), pp. 313–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 See the following files in the office of the press censors, Ottawa: for the Citizen, 3-A; C-12; for Le Droit, 2-A; D-7; and for the Sun, 2-A; 5-2.

23 Prosecutions for offences under the Regulations are in the hands of the provinces, and no province has as yet compiled statistics showing the actual number of prosecutions in its courts. Figures used here are estimates made from public statements of former Attorney-General Conant of Ontario and from an analysis made by the present writer of cases reported oin the press throughout the war period.

24 Rex v Stewart, [1940] O.W.N. 95, [1940] O.R. 178, [1940] D.L.R. 689, 73 C.C.C. 141.

25 Rex v. Coffin. [1940] 2 W.W.R. 592. The opinion presented in this case represents an extreme in judicial interpretations of the Regulations. The magistrate said: “The whole intention [of the Regulations] is to compel individuals to maintain silence or speak in the unconquerable spirit by which troops in action must be moved if they are to win.”

26 The penalties provided by the Regulations are, upon summary conviction, a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or both, and upon indictment (at the election of the Attorney-General of Canada or of the province) a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both. Most cases have been prosecuted by way of summary conviction.

27 Of special interest in this connexion are the facts relating to the internment of Pat Sullivan, president of the Seamen's Union. See Ex parte Sullivan, [1941] O.W.N. 49, [1941] O.R. 417, [1941] 1 D.L.R. 676, 74 C.C.C. 70.

28 In the federal election of June, 1945, Mayor Houde was defeated in his attempt to gain a seat in Parliament.

29 Members of all parties and groups in the House of Commons have been unstinting in their praise of the R.C.M.P.

30 The Honourable Ernest Lapointe died in November, 1941, and was succeeded by the Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent.