May I point out to my hon. friend that I was born in Canada. I am a British subject, and I am not ashamed of my opinions in this regard. I did my stint of service in the war, together with my comrades in this house. If the hon. gentleman cares to bring my loyalty into question, he may do so, but I shall let my record speak for itself. I have endeavoured to make it clear-and I have not uttered an offensive word while doing so -that I am: not advancing an anti-British policy. As was said by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, whom I quoted a moment ago, I am a Canadian and view these matters as a Canadian. But I realize that, in the final analysis, these matters affect Canada vitally and must be worked out not on the basis of false sentiment or any mawkish patriotism, but on the basis of national interest. The day has long gone by when people in this country say, "Britain is my country; Canada is my home." I say that due to the constitutional developments in which we take such pride in this house, Canada is our country, and we are responsible for the development of Canadian policies in this regard. So I am pointing out, as well as I am capable of doing, the grounds giving rise to suspicion and uneasiness in this country at this time.
These relationships exist. Of that there is abundant evidence, and they constitute tacit commitments. The greatest commitment of all lies in the fact that we have not relinquished that constitutional relationship, the constitutional law, which willy-nilly compels us automatically to apply economic sanctions against the subjects of those nations which
may be at war with his majesty. That is a matter of constitutional law. All these things I say constitute commitments, and I feel that it is our responsibility to face the issues frankly and discover, in line with democratic traditions in Canada, just where we stand. We should know where we stand. As I said before, it is not good enough to leave these matters for settlement until we succumb to war hysteria. Then, in the event of war, of course to discuss any such matter as this would be secession, and I am not for one moment arguing for separation from the empire. I say this at this time, with all due sense of responsibility, that throughout Canada there is a growing and profound distrust of the policy of the present British government, and that does not mean disloyalty to British traditions or to the sentiments of the British people. Sometimes there is a vast difference between the policies of a British government and the wishes of the British people. Perhaps I may not with propriety attack the British government in this house to-night; but this fact is I think, clear, that the policies which they are following to-day are not in strict accordance with the mandate which they secured from the British people in 1935.
There are some reasons for this distrust. This is one: The British government has not given us any clear assurance of its intention to support a plan of collective security to stop aggression or to lay the basis for a collective peace. That assurance has not been given, and that is an important reason for the growing distrust. Many say quite freely that the recent statements of the British Prime Minister-