by Denis Smith
Diefenbaker declared the party’s search for a wartime coalition government at an end. “The time is now passed when we should come, with hat in hand, as a common mendicant, asking for alms at King’s table … There will be no National Government under Mr. King.” The Conservative Party had a record of patriotism, “of co-operation lustred by an attitude of country before Party, united in a common desire to win the war”; and yet Mackenzie King had called the Conservative Party a “mob.” “That sneer represented an attitude of mind that demands action. In my vocabulary those words are ‘fighting’ words, though they were expurgated from Hansard … We have endeavoured to share in the Government – it has been refused; it has been spurned; it has been ridiculed. We have become sterile of ideas except for our demand for National Government. Why keep this up?”
The party should seek alliances neither on right or left, but instead should “restore itself from within.” It should accept Edmund Burke’s definition of conservatism as a “disposition to conserve and the ability to change.” In the age of the common man, that meant fundamental change.
The Atlantic Charter promises improved labor standards, economic adjustments and social security. If the Empire fights for those principles, can the Conservative Party stand for or fight for less? Security must be our watch word. By security I mean – to every able bodied man a job, and to those who, because of age, physical or mental infirmity, cannot work, security without work. I mean security for employment; security in and while employed; security while not employed and of retirement, and of medical and hospital assistance, and of family in case of accident, ill health, invalidity and death … In short, by security I mean the guarantee of an opportunity for your sons and daughters to travel along the broadway of promise and hope instead of stumbling along the paths of hopelessness and despair…
…I believe that the principles of Port Hope will prove the hope of this Party. I believe that Canadian unity must be assured; that it must be built on the basis of a Canadianism that knows no racial origin; that out of the various races and creeds of this Dominion must evolve a united Canada.
Diefenbaker found his justification in the reforming spirit of Sir John A. Macdonald, “a most far-sighted man who was always ahead of his time,” and in the party’s record of pragmatic state intervention in the economy. But such intervention should avoid the arbitrary Liberal rule of wartime and the bureaucratic inclinations of the CCF. In a sweeping peroration, he quoted the Bible and Lord Macaulay, ending with Winston Churchill’s appeal to beleaguered Britons to “stand by one another, true and faithful comrades, and do our duty, God helping us, to the end.”101
Balloting took place the next day. Given the lack of committed delegates and a slate that was uncertain until the very moment of nominations, the outcome was unpredictable. Although Meighen had succeeded, in the end, in getting Bracken onto the ballot, the delegates had repeatedly shown their wish to be treated with respect rather than herded into his camp. Yet both deference and prudence suggested that Meighen’s preference would carry weight. Wasn’t Bracken, after all, the safest of these western progressives?
On the first ballot, 862 delegates cast their votes, and 432 votes were needed to win. Bracken just fell short, with 420; MacPherson was second with 222, Diefenbaker third with 120, Green next with 80, and Stevens last with 20. Stevens and Green withdrew before a second ballot, but MacPherson’s supporters prevented his attempted withdrawal and Diefenbaker stayed in. On that ballot Bracken triumphed easily, with 538 votes; MacPherson trailed with 255 and Diefenbaker with 79. The losers moved to make the vote unanimous, and Bracken delivered a relaxed and effective acceptance speech. When the motion for a change in party name came forward, it was adopted without debate by enthusiastic voice vote. Bracken’s and Diefenbaker’s party had become the Progressive Conservative Party.102
Diefenbaker took this defeat with relative calm. He had not expected victory.103 Walker’s outburst had been unseemly, but Diefenbaker himself had behaved with dignity throughout. He left the convention with his reputation enhanced, both in the House and in the country. He had made new friends like the Toronto lawyer William Brunt and had widened his circle of political admirers. And the party had moved significantly in the direction he believed it should.104 For Diefenbaker, MacPherson contributed the only sour note: “MacPherson and I had been friends for many years. But our personal relations were never to recover from my decision to stand as a candidate in 1942. My action was heresy, and a cardinal sin.”105
Bracken met the parliamentary caucus in Winnipeg the day after his convention victory. The first issue was his entry into the House of Commons. Bracken was aware of the paradox that his nomination had been sponsored by the party’s more reactionary wing, and he rejected the thought of plunging into divisive controversy in the party or the House. He told Mackenzie King that “he had never taken a party part in politics … he was just interested in the public service.” He judged himself a poor debater. He knew from Meighen’s experience that a by-election would be strenuous and risky. So, after taking advice from Meighen, Milner, and others, he decided not to seek early election to parliament. Instead, he would concentrate on touring and consulting.106 This hardly seemed the fighting start that Diefenbaker had called for.
Since Hanson would not consider carrying on as House leader, the caucus would have to make a fresh choice. On December 19 Gordon Graydon, who had formally nominated Bracken, wrote to Conservative MPs on Bracken’s behalf, inviting their suggestions. Diefenbaker understood that this was a form of election and that the contest was between himself and Graydon. But in January the prospect faded. “Even though Bracken did not want me as House Leader, I knew that I had enough support in caucus to make my selection a distinct possibility. The letter vote was taken in early January, 1943. About the middle of the month, Mr. Bracken visited Saskatoon to see his mother. He telephoned me to meet him. We chatted for two hours or so. Since nothing was said about the choice of a temporary Leader, I naturally concluded that someone else had been chosen. I learned later that Bracken had decided to ignore the results of the letter ballot and to put the issue of the House leadership directly before caucus when it met on 27 January, the day before the Opening of Parliament.”107
Diefenbaker was involved in a complex civil fraud case in Saskatoon and found it difficult to attend the caucus meeting. He was only persuaded to do so by a series of solicitous telephone calls from Bracken. Although he was now less eager to win the House leadership, Diefenbaker believed that the chances of winning were good. He set out by train for the meeting.
We get snowed up in Northern Ontario. The train was to arrive here at 8 o’clock in the morning – didn’t arrive until 8 o’clock at night. I arrive at the station and Mel Jack is there, secretary to Bracken. He says, “Come on over, they’re choosing a leader.” I said, “that was to be done this morning.” All that day that group had worked to bring about the assurance that I would be defeated … I got up immediately and said, “I’m not standing.” There were four or five names submitted. I was two short of a majority on the first vote. Graydon was next and … two dropped out. Then there was a second vote, again I said I’m not standing and I was still in much the same position, and it came down to the final between Graydon and myself. And I got up and I said, “Now I’ve told you I’m going west to take this case … I don’t want this job. I’m very certain. There’s my ballot marked for Graydon.” He beat me by one vote.108
This was a puzzling incident, perhaps a more painful rebuff to Diefenbaker than the convention defeat, since it seemed to involve a concerted campaign against him in caucus, supported by the new leader. The memory of it rankled. Yet his own equivocation must have been a source of doubt and confusion to members during the balloting: in a sense he was both in and out of the contest. Those who took him at his word must have believed that he did not want the job. What he may really have wanted was an impossible show of unanimity in his favour.
JOHN DIEFENBAKER’S DAYS W
ERE SINGLE-MINDEDLY DOMINATED BY POLITICS. IN Ottawa he allowed no time for distractions: the House of Commons was his life. There he found fellowship, conflict, drama, and comic relief. His mother and father in Saskatoon watched his career with obsessive interest, reading Hansard and the press clippings for mention of his name, applauding, urging him on, and reporting the details of their own mundane lives in regular letters. John apparently wrote to them almost daily – although few of those letters survive. After 1943 William’s letters to John became less frequent, but Mary maintained her own staccato correspondence. She complained more and more about the laziness of her husband, the inadequacy of the hired help, and the faults of “huns,” “indians,” Liberals, and the local Baptist congregation.109 Early in March 1944 Diefenbaker asked his parents for their advice about a prospective visit to Australia with a parliamentary delegation. His letter provoked two months of tense family debate, at first focused on the trip’s safety and political implications. Father wrote to son on March 14:
A number of things come up…
…Will prominent persons be called upon to go? If not, why? Has Gordon Graydon been asked to be one of the number? Would he be glad to go and thus let one of the other members substitute for him while away? How much of your parliamentary attendance time would it require? Would your constituents favor your being away from parliament that long? Would the long and possibly tedious boat trip be of much health benefit? Would it be dangerous at this time in particular? If an election be set at such a time as to … preclude your active participation … how much of your chances to win … would be lost thereby?
Considering everything favorably, as I see it you would gain some prestige, you would see Australia … learn quite a bit about the country … be amongst others of your company, feted and dined and come home with a knowledge which would … come good in making public and parliamentary speeches thereafter.
…And what does Edna say?…
P.S. – Just as to what your mother thinks about your going, I don’t know.110
That postscript warned of more to come. A few days later Mary Diefenbaker wrote: “Now about that trip you would like to take. I dont know what to say about it, its up to you. If King should go to the country you might be out of luck, and you could go to Australia some other time, you are still young. I dont feel like writing tonight will do better next time.”111
The warnings of political danger – the hints, even, of a plot to get John out of the way so that he might miss a general election – covered a more personal affront. The trip would mean John’s absence on his parents’ fiftieth wedding anniversary on May 2. The swirl of parental doubt meant that he could not make up his mind about the journey. He suggested, in exchange for his absence, that they should later visit Ottawa; but Mary fussed about that. On April 19 she wrote:
We received your letter today, and see you are still very undecided about your trip. Well John I dont know what to say about it, you will have to decide for yourself. I dont want you to consider us at all we are all right, so if that is on your mind for get it. The only thing that troubled me was the danger of the trip, and you told me there was no danger, and strange to say you got me to believe it, and as far as going east I dont know what to say about that with the hot weather coming on, and Edna can tell you I cant get clothes here, and I wont go with my old clothes. I dont know how we could get ready in such a short time, and just forget about the 50th anniversary, let it ride the same as the other 49, for that does not worry me at all of course it would have been nice if the whole family could have been here we could have gone to the Bessborough for dinner, but that cannot be, so let us forget it. If we were going East it would not be necessary for you to come back for us. surely we could make it alone. I dont want you to fly here. Had a letter from Elmer yesterday he was glad to see you and was quite worked up about your trip.112
In the end, a mother’s disapproval won the day and Diefenbaker gave up the Australian trip. But neither he nor Edna went to Saskatoon for the anniversary. He trusted instead to a telephone call and a flood of roses. Mary wrote to John that evening to spill out her self-pity.
I was sorry I did not do better over the Phone. I took asparin all morning trying to keep cool, so as I could talk to you, but just before you called the Roses arrived and it knocked me out. Fifty Roses when all I wanted was sons. I never was so disappointed in all my life. Even after getting Edna’s letter saying she wished you folks could be here but that Politicks seemed to have upset everything. I never thought that politics would keep you from coming home to our golden wedding. As you told me it was the one reason why you did not take (or want to take) the trip to Australia. I told you then to forget about it. But when you did’nt go, I did think you would be here today, but politics comes first. I did not know you loved them that much. Well John I have shed a lot of tears today, and I heard your Dad crying too. but he is not like me he dont say anything and I just rave. I had a letter from Elmer the other day. he said he did not know what you were going to do. but there would be a letter from you when he got back to Winnipeg. I think he would have tried to get a 48 [hour leave]. Well the Big day will soon be over and I am thankful for that I have not eaten a thing since morning I got some dinner for Will, but could not choke any thing down myself There are few live to see their fiftieth anniversary I am not saying this to make you feel bad. but I just cant understand it. Elmer phoned from Winnipeg said he could not get here … I got a new dress or will have it this week. Its very nice and cost money. Now John write and tell me why love.113
John wrote to Elmer a few days later to report that he was “equally disturbed” at missing the anniversary, and that “I had the same experience as you did … I wrote home today explaining the situation as much as I could, but apparently there is nothing that can be done now.”114
Since September 1941, Elmer Diefenbaker had been a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force. After training in Trenton, Ontario, he was appointed as a flying officer in the administrative branch and posted to No. 2 Training Command in Winnipeg as a lecturer and supervisor of air cadets. Soon after the anniversary débâcle, in June 1944, Elmer was involved in some kind of disciplinary affair leading to his suspension from duty. William wrote to John on July 14 to say that “we are wholly in the dark so far as word from him is concerned … I have so far not said a word about the affair, to any outsider, and think it more than wise to continue that attitude.” John seemed to have intervened on Elmer’s behalf; William noted that John “had been a real brother to Elmer” and would no doubt give him work if that were temporarily needed. For several months Elmer was retained in the RCAF without duties, until receiving an honourable discharge in February 1945.115
Elmer had already returned to the family home in Saskatoon when, on February 12, William Diefenbaker died at seventy-seven years of age.116 More distressing still, for John, was Edna’s condition.117 In wartime letters to his mother and father, John periodically mentioned that Edna was unwell, but the nature of the complaint was unclear.118 John was still unusually dependent on his mother, which meant constantly catering to her whims; on the one occasion in 1944 when he defied her, the emotional price had proven to be high. That was a continuing source of annoyance and frustration for Edna. So, apparently, was her new life in Ottawa.
Edna had no extensive public life of her own. She existed as John’s satellite and devoted servant. She shared and nursed his grievances over lost battles and social slights.119 John was both demanding and preoccupied, expecting Edna to devote herself to him but refusing to give much thought to her concerns, or to allow time for any joint recreations. Diefenbaker lived his political life at a high nervous pitch, which left him moody and unpredictable as a husband, prone to sudden bouts of rage and suspicion. He needed Edna to reassure and calm him, to feed him a proper bland diet for his ever-queasy stomach, even to advise him as he dressed.120
When Edna lobbied hard for the advancement of her “Donny Boy” – as she often did – some politicians and re
porters drew back. She was too pushy. She also, inevitably, heard and absorbed the frequent criticism directed at her husband for his aggressive ways in the House.
In Prince Albert Edna had been the object of tongue-wagging about her romantic friendship with a handsome young widower who courted her on the dance floor and sometimes visited her at home during John’s daytime absences.121 She was naturally high-spirited and flirtatious, and found that her charms could lead to dalliance. In the greater anonymity of Ottawa, without the moorings of home and community, yet facing the same desperation in her life with John, she found similar diversion – and worried about John’s jealousy and the potential scandal of discovery. Rodney Adamson, the gregarious Conservative MP from Port Credit, Ontario – who enjoyed his knowledge of Ottawa’s political lowlife – was one of her confidants in that distress. He wrote in his diary in May 1942 after a lunch with Edna and John: “Talk to Edna afterwards about her lousy lover in the Maritimes tell her John would murder her if she was found out or it created a scandal.”122 Whether the initiative for this conversation came from Edna or Adamson is not clear, but Edna obviously revealed some intimacies. Adamson used crude language in the diary to describe her exuberant sexual appetites and John’s indifference. A few days later Adamson noted cryptically: “Go up to House and talk to Edna again about her morals.”123 He was neither prudish nor judgmental; the words suggest no more than a mordant concern about her anxieties and her discretion. Almost two years later, in February 1944, Adamson wrote again in his diary that “Edna also has a boy friend Rennie in the Lord Elgin.”124
