April 18, 1942
PERSONAL
Right Honourable W.L.Mackenzie King
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Mr. King:-
I listened with a great deal of interest to your address broadcast on Tuesday evening, April 7, and have carefully studied the text as published in the press the following day. I consider the address a masterly presentation of one side of the case, and, I might add, the only fair and honest presentation of that side of the case of which I have any knowledge. You made it quite clear that the only release the government requires is from the pledge "not to resort to conscription as a method of raising men for military service overseas."
Your argument, masterly though it was, still leaves me unconvinced that I should vote "yes." At the time the pledge was given it looked good to me; and nothing of which I have any knowledge has since transpired, nor have I been able to imagine anything that might occur during the future progress of this war which would make conscription preferable to voluntary enlistment for military service overseas.
What I shall say is not intended to be criticism of the government for submitting the matter to the people. Under all the circumstances, with a large section of the press calling for conscription for no other purpose than to embarrass the government; and other sections of the press either influenced into quiescence, or afraid to take a stand on the question; with members of parliament being swayed by these subversive influences, the government acted wisely in submitting the question to the people.
However, it is one thing to approve of the plebiscite, and quite another thing to commend the proposal to release the government from its pledge not to enforce conscription. In the opinion of the writer the reasons for the plebiscite are good reasons for voting "No", and refusing to grant the requested release. This does not imply a lack of confidence in you, or in your judgment. My confidence in you and in your judgement was never greater than it is at the present time. I regret that I cannot say as much for all your colleagues and other liberal (?) members of parliament.
The personnel of parliament has changed much during the last twenty-five years; but the character of the members has not greatly improved during that time. I have not forgotten how, in 1917 one after another of Sir Wilfrid's closest friends were swept off their feet by influences similar to
(page 2)
those at work today; and were either led or forced into supporting conscription against their better judgment.
A “Yes” vote will place in the hands of your political opponents a weapon far more powerful than any they have yet used. One hates to think how this weapon will be used if Ontario votes 'Yes", and Quebec votes "No."
Why are all the political opponents of the government working so hard for "Yes" vote? Among those men I could name some who would risk losing this war to get control of the government of Canada for the next few years and shape the post-war policy of this country; and they would risk another war in less than twenty-five years in order to keep the old mills grinding out gold for their coffers. These are the men of whom I wrote to you eighteen months ago; and these are the men who tried to foist the present leader of the Conservative party upon the country again.
However, the fortunes of the Liberal party are insignificant compared to the fortunes of this war; and if the successful defence of this country's freedom demanded that conscription be enforced to the limit; and that the party with which you and I have been identified for so many years must forever pass away, I would say the demand must be met. But neither is necessary.
If more men are required than are offering themselves the remedy will not be found in conscription. A man with a grouch because of being sent oversees against his will cannot reasonably be expected to develop into a good and efficient defender of liberty. What is required is a “spiritual awakening.” If the men and newspapers that are using every influence at their command to embarrass the government would exert an equal amount of energy to arouse the people to a realization of the seriousness of the situation we would have more men asking, to be sent overseas than it would be wise to send.
It cannot truthfully be said that Canada has not carried her full share of this war in both man and material. Of the twenty-six American nations Canada was, up to a very few months ago, the only one which had sent a man overseas. Before the United States can have proportionately equalled our contribution in man power they will have to send two million men overseas. Where are the ships to transport all these men? For every man Canada sends overseas the United states will have to keep one at home because of limited transportation facilities.
The countries which, it is claimed, need our men have more men available than they can equip even with the equipment sent from us added to their own. Hong Kong and Singapore fell because the defenders did not have
(page 3)
sufficient mechanized support. If Burma falls it will not be on account of insufficient men; but rather because they have not the fighting machines for the men who are available. That has been the story behind every lost territory since the war began.
Every man sent overseas is one added to the number to be clothed, feed and equipped without adding to the potential strength of the fighting forces of the overseas allies. As I understand it, the cry from all the attacked countries is not for more men; but for more machines. The millions of Russia, China and India, to say nothing of the men of Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and France who will rise when the proper time comes, can man all the guns, tanks and planes we can give them for a long time to come. For every man we send to those countries a man on the spot must stay at home for need of the machines with which to "help finish the job.”
This, as I said at the start, is not written in criticism; but is in explenation of why I cannot vote "Yes" on April 27 next.
To be the head of any government during these trying times is certainly not a "bed of roses;" and I want you to know that I am ever mindful of you and of the difficult tasks before you.
With every good wish for your health, and as full a measure of happiness as is possible during the period through which we are passing, I remain as always,
Your sincere friend,
C.MORTIMER BEZEAU
