Mr. Speaker, I was quite taken by the comments by the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. I think most of us in the House respect his opinions.
The analysis in his dissertation about Canada's commitment or lack of commitment to this war is based on the premise of the difference between a legal and an illegal war. I was kind of captivated by that thought process.
I wonder if the member could explain to me under what terms and conditions he feels that war is legal. By definition, if he believes the war is illegal there must be, in his definition, some thought process that a war is legal.
What kind of process says that a war is legal? At what time is it legal for a nation to invade, strike, maim people or kill people?