Mark Hammer - Well, as both the NDP and the Liberals explained at length during the debate, they don't think Canada should stay out of it, but both have different ideas on what the contribution should be.
To both Ryan and MB, whose questions seem to overlap, I'm not sure if last night's vote will have any long-term effect on the popular fortunes of any party, really.
lyndaler: We need to tell the folks at ScribbleLive to build one!
Martyn - Very true, in which case it *could* have an effect -- but by then, the situation on the ground may have changed, and I do tend to think Canadians would have less appetite for a major, Afghanistan-esque military commitment.
Ryan W - I believe you've once again made the case for not putting such votes to the House of Commons.
Sherry - You are indeed! And yay for reading Phil Lagasse -- he's very much worth following on twitter if you aren't already doing so. (And no, he didn't pay me to say that.)
Aw, thanks for that, Lyndaler! Sometimes my temper gets frayed as well -- by partisans of every hue.
Fletch - I can't recall a previous vote of this nature that was treated as a matter of conscience, which is the only scenario in which a caucus vote is described as 'whipped'.
HenderK - Only on abortion! Maybe. I dunno. But it's a fair point, as far as consistency of criticism.
That said, I maintain that military missions are simply not conscience questions.
MB - Well, as many government ministers and Conservative MPs pointed out during the debate, there really is no rule saying Canada has to pick between military support and humanitarian aid. We can do both.
Steve S - Depends on how Defence allocates the money -- it could be in the next batch of supplementary estimates, yes, but the department may have room in its voted budget to cover the cost.
That's the sort of very good question that can be put to ministers at committee, though.
Hemlock - In the history of Canadian politics, no one has ever successfully told Bob Rae what to say or when to say it.
Oh boy, A Radical... I thought about not publishing that comment, but I let it go. Right to free speech was on your side on this one.
Fletch - Is it any different from how the Liberals voted on, say, the prostitution law rewrite? Or the Canada-Korea trade deal? Or any of the other instances where the party voted as one?
On the public opinion side... and speaking of new additions to our Hill bureau team... one of our new contributor Eric Grenier's recent pieces (published Monday) talked about what the polls are saying vis a vis the new combat mission against ISIS:
Post vote, the White House released a statement thanking Canada for committing to join nations going to Iraq to "degrade and destroy" (I think) ISIS. What struck me was that the White House statement offered more mission scope detail in that one paragraph than our Prime Minister gave to Canadians in the house. In my job, my signature is legally binding. A vote in the HOC is legally binding, and in this case is a vote to send soldiers into harm's way. In my opinion a supporting vote from the NDP or LPC without significant mission details would be ethically and legally irresponsible.