tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21184746.post114248516728749420..comments2023-10-26T04:30:03.752-04:00Comments on From Cork to Toronto: The other guy who should have been in KandaharMark Dowlinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01399115211805036553noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21184746.post-1143080052875993522006-03-22T21:14:00.000-05:002006-03-22T21:14:00.000-05:00It was in the House, but sitting as a committee wi...It was in the House, but sitting as a committee with different standing orders, presumably to permit more discussion than a formal debate.Mark Dowlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01399115211805036553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21184746.post-1143074257025068402006-03-22T19:37:00.000-05:002006-03-22T19:37:00.000-05:00Thanks for the link! It looks like it was debated ...Thanks for the link! It looks like it was debated in Committee rather than in the House though. It's also in 2005 -- I think the original mission was in 2001 when Chretien went ahead sans debate (as I recall, and I may be wrong) in Parliament, partly because after 9/11, the feeling in Canada seemed to be that of course we'd go. I find it a bit laughable that the Liberals have suddenly changed their mind on this mission. We should have a similar law to Ireland's.talk talk talk / Shireenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453931641034885060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21184746.post-1142788795022844392006-03-19T12:19:00.000-05:002006-03-19T12:19:00.000-05:00In Ireland, committing troops requires a vote in P...In Ireland, committing troops requires a vote in Parliament (the "triple lock" of Government, Parliament and UN authorisation). Commitment beyond the current mission should be debated and voted on. However, it is not fair to say there was no debate in Parliament - <A HREF="http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/150_2005-11-15/HAN150-E.htm#SOB-1471141" REL="nofollow">here's the Hansard record</A>. Layton didn't bother to show up.Mark Dowlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01399115211805036553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21184746.post-1142737559181105142006-03-18T22:05:00.000-05:002006-03-18T22:05:00.000-05:00It is egregious that Parliament didn't debate goin...It is egregious that Parliament didn't debate going into Afghanistan originally, and the Liberals made a unilateral decision. And I doubt we'd be hearing calls for a debate if they were still in power. But I agree the time for debate is past...for this mission. However, when the end of this mission approaches, that would be a good time to have a debate as to why we went, why we stayed, and why we should or should not continue to send fresh troops and just how many we can send. Passionate politicians speaking eloquently (is that possible?) on why we're there may help to sway the populace away from their complacent attitude because of living in a peaceful democracy towards one of standing up for a people living in a war zone who desire freedom to live peaceful lives like us.talk talk talk / Shireenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453931641034885060noreply@blogger.com