370. Memorandum of a Conversation Between Prime Minister Diefenbaker and the Ambassador in Canada (Merchant), Prime Minister’s Office, Ottawa, June 22, 19571
Immediately upon receipt late Friday afternoon of the personal message of congratulations from President Eisenhower for delivery to the new Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker,2 I attempted to secure the earliest possible appointment in order to deliver it personally. The time was finally set for 10:30 Saturday morning. Although a Cabinet meeting was in process, the Prime Minister courteously said that when I arrived at his office he would excuse himself from the meeting in order to receive me.
On my arrival Mr. Benson sent word to the Prime Minister and I chatted with George Drew3 who was waiting in the Prime Minister’s outer office. Mr. Diefenbaker, on arrival, took me into his private office and I gave him a letter containing the text of the President’s message explaining that I was under instruction to deliver it personally as early as possible. The Prime Minister read the message with visible appreciation and pleasure. “This is wonderful—really wonderful.” He said that he would send a reply before his departure the next day for London but that he did want me to know how deeply grateful he was for the President’s warm and friendly message.
At this point, his assistant, Mr. Benson, knocked on the door and brought in a telegram which he gave to the Prime Minister to read. The Prime Minister then handed it to me with the remark that he didn’t know what protocol was in such cases but that since I was sitting there he wanted me to read it. It was a message of thanks from the Queen. The Prime Minister then said that, “the fact that within minutes of each other he had received these two personal messages was more than mere coincidence—it was prophetic.” He went on to say that this was a remarkable symbol of the ties of Canada to both Great Britain and the United States. He felt very strongly about both.
The Prime Minister then started chatting on a variety of subjects in a thoroughly relaxed fashion and notwithstanding the fact that his chair was vacant in the Cabinet meeting in the next room. He started complaining over the difficulties of Cabinet making in Canada. “Your President has no such problems. He is free to select the best men for [Page 895] each office.” The Prime Minister went on to say that the requirements of geography, race and so forth which hedged in any Prime Minister in making his choice made it one of his most difficult tasks. He found it heartbreaking to have to explain to some old friends and extraordinarily gifted men that for reasons unrelated to their loyalty or ability it was just not possible for him to include them in the Cabinet.
He spoke of his coming trip to London. He said he was looking forward to it greatly but despite a desk full of briefing papers prepared for him, he had not yet been able to read a single paper or find time otherwise to prepare himself for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Meeting. He then spoke of the fact that eight months ago few people in Canada would have expected him to be what he was today. He said that his own faith had never wavered. He described the realistic accuracy of his personal estimates of the results before the 1949 and 1953 elections. Then he went on to say that when the last Gallup Poll came out two weeks or so before the election, he had remonstrated with the Gallup Institute, reminding them of his own past record for accuracy and prophecying that the Conservatives would win 117 seats on June 10. He said that no one could campaign across the country and talk to as many people as he had without realizing how deep and broad the demand had become for a change in Government.
Mr. Diefenbaker then reverted to the President’s letter which he was still holding in his hand and glancing over from time to time. He said please to assure the President that the bonds between our countries were very deep and that he was devoted to their maintenance. He went on to say that there is no anti-Americanism in Canada but, on the other hand, there is a deep resentment over our wheat disposal policies. He said it was important that I should appreciate that this was not confined to the prairies but extended from one end of Canada to the other. He said that Canada was being very bitterly hurt by our ruthless competition; that it was not just cut-price competition but that it was made even worse by “its beneficent aspects.” (He did not elaborate on this point but I interpreted it to mean that the element of charity in the application of our PL 480 policies made it difficult for those who were hurt to criticize it as effectively as the actual facts warranted.)
Mr. Diefenbaker went on in his attack with growing emotionalism and eloquence. At the first pause, I broke in to say that while I realized this was not the time nor place for a thorough-going discussion of what was admittedly a problem, I did want to make two or three points. The first was that the United States recognized that its surplus disposal actions had a real impact in Canada. I said that the execution of our policies was designed to minimize any damage and that to this [Page 896] end we maintained a process of full consultation. I said, secondly, We were accompanying our disposal actions with a large-scale domestic program designed to prevent the re-accumulation of future surpluses.
The Prime Minister interjected at this point that he recognized we were taking such steps and that our Government’s courage deserved praise in many actions which were politically unpopular. He said in our efforts to reduce production we were way ahead of Canada.
I then referred to “tied sales” which he bitterly attacked. I pointed out that our whole design was to create new markets and increase consumption and that the provision in some agreements for specific amounts to be imported through commercial channels was designed to insure the legitimate commercial markets of exporters and to ensure PL 480 wheat was in fact an addition to consumption rather than a displacement of normal purchases through commercial channels.
From the glint in his eye I foresaw another onslaught so I hastened to add that I would like him to familiarize himself with the whole history of our Polish aid agreement. I said that I thought when he studied the record of consultation with Canada; the political purposes underlying the agreement; our exertions to obtain assurances by the Poles that they would continue to look to Canada for normal wheat purchases; and our genuinely expressed hope that Canada would join with us in providing the Poles with a stockpile, he would find the basis for a modification of his expressed views.
Mr. Diefenbaker said he was not familiar with the Polish matter but that he would make it a point to study it on his return from London. He then said that he would welcome the early opportunity of sitting down alone with me and spending an informal evening talking over frankly this surplus disposal problem and other problems in the relations of our two countries. I replied that I would welcome nothing more and was at his call and service for this purpose. He said that he would not be back from London for another two weeks and for the next ten days thereafter he would presumably be occupied with accumulated business but that soon thereafter he would get in touch with me to set a specific date. At this point I said that I knew he must return to his Cabinet and that I greatly appreciated the opportunity of talking with him as we had. He once more expressed his appreciation for the President’s message and promised an early reply. On this note the interview closed.
Throughout our talk the Prime Minister’s attitude was relaxed and friendly. He seemed fresh and alert and, at one point, remarked that he had thrived on the hard campaigning. He has warmth, eloquence and very real charm. I had the impression that he had deliberately seized the first opportunity for a long, informal talk with me (it lasted about forty minutes) with a a view to helping to put Washington’s mind at ease concerning future relationships with the new Government. [Page 897] He was blunt and obviously felt deeply about wheat. In all other respects and on other topics he reaffirmed in words and attitude his friendliness toward the United States, his recognition of the linkage of our destinies and his basic assumption that there would be no change in the fundamental elements of Canadian foreign policy.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 742.13/6–2557. Confidential. Drafted by Merchant on June 24 and enclosed in a letter dated June 25 from Merchant to Howe. Copies were distributed to Dulles, Herter, Murphy, Elbrick, and to the White House. (Note from Joseph N. Greene, Jr., to Dulles, July 1; ibid.)↩
- Telegraphic transmission of Eisenhower’s congratulatory message, June 21, is ibid., 742.13/6–2157. Diefenbaker’s reply, June 22, is Ibid., 742.13/6–2457.↩
- George Drew, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party until 1956, when he was succeeded by Diefenbaker.↩