The Battle of the St. Lawrence by Nathan M. Greenfield Page B

decidedly Pétainist leanings) carried an editorial not only repeating the information Roy had revealed in the House, but also stating that the same facts were known by “half the people in Quebec City before Roy spoke in the House on the 10th.” Without repeating what Roy had told the House, even the
Montreal Gazette
asked, since what had occurred onthe St. Lawrence was an “open secret in the whole countryside and beyond,” why did the government of Canada believe its silence amounted to a “withhold[ing] of information from the enemy”?
    When the House met on Monday the thirteenth, Roy attempted to repeat the line of questioning he had begun the previous week but was prevented by the Speaker, who recognized Defence Minister James L. Ralston; Macdonald was out of the House at the time. Ralston picked up where King had left off the previous Friday by repeating that Roy’s question of the tenth was “a gift to Hitler’s men because it meant that the U-boat if it is still in the St. Lawrence does not have to surface to send a message and thus reveal itself.”
    With Roy effectively silenced, other members of the opposition felt it was time to attack the government for its handling of the St. Lawrence situation. Obviously still smarting from the dressing-down Minister Macdonald had given him in May when he said that the U-boats that attacked
Nicoya
and
Leto
had come from St. Pierre and Miquelon, Richard Hanson, House leader of the opposition Progressive Party, rose and said, “Reports were widespread in the Province of Quebec and that he [Macdonald] himself had received letters to the effect that U-boats were freely operating both at Matane and at Cap Chat and that everyone knew it.” Hanson continued by telling the House that “precise statements would have a reassuring effect. What is the position with respect to convoys in the St. Lawrence? Are there any? Should we not know the position in a general way? What is the [navy’s] position with respect to protection?” Ralston refused all comment, which led the House leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation to echo Roy’s call for a secret session: “This is a means that not only the British Parliament has resorted to but also our sister dominions.”
    Later, Naval Services Minister Macdonald returned to the House and, in a long speech, explained the government’s position with regard to both censorship and protection of the shipping for which Canada held responsibility. “Information,” he began by admitting, “as to the sinking of these ships was in the possession of many people early last week…. Many people knew of it; it was known along the waterfronts of the country, it was known to the press by Monday or Tuesday. The press refused to publish it … until an official announcement was made. It was in the possession of the Leaderof the Opposition, because he had heard the story on the train and spoke to me about it.”
    Macdonald continued, taking aim at the complaints made by the Quebec press: “But there is a tremendous difference between Canadians knowing about it. The entire people of this country might know of a sinking …, but so long as it was not made public in our papers or broadcast over our radio, the chances of it getting to Germany are small…. Once it is broadcast it … speedily finds its way to Germany and is used there for propaganda purposes.” The rules established by the chief censor “are made [therefore] for the sole purpose of keeping from the enemy information which may be of great value to him in directing the movements of ships.”
    Macdonald then turned to upbraiding Roy for misusing his privilege as a member of parliament:
    There is very little use, there is very little purpose, in censoring the press … if any Honourable Member of this House can stand in his place and by asking a question or by making a direct statement, as the Honourable Member for Gaspé did, undo the efforts of those who are endeavouring to