Not even a missile attack can shake House's commitment to low-level dysfunction: Aaron Wherry

On the morning after the president of the United States sent 59 cruise missiles into Syria, the first major military actof the wildly unpredictableTrump era, there was some confusion as to whetherthe prime minister of Canada had the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to stand and deliver a statement on the situation.

Shortly before 11 a.m., 15 minutes after the prime minister had been rumoured to speak, the NDP's Matthew Dub stood on a point of order to ask where Justin Trudeauwas. Kevin Lamoureux, the deputy Liberal House leader,suggested that Dub talk to his own side about whether they had agreed to let Trudeauspeak.

Back to Dub, who stood and testified that there was such agreement. Then to CandiceBergen, the Conservative House leader, who informed the House that her party was also agreed.

The Speaker finally rose and suggestedthe parties take the discussion to the lobby.

So let it be noted that not even an act of war can shake this stolidHouse from its commitment tolow-level dysfunction.

Otherwise, the sudden escalation of an intractable tragedywas a moment that seemed to call out for urgent comment. And so the nation's leaders were pressed into action.

Thing is, there is only so much anyone has to say.

PM 'dangerously naive'

In lieu of a statement, the prime minister put in a rare appearance at Friday morning's traditionally neglected session ofquestion period.

Conservative MP PierrePoilievre immediately accused him of being "dangerously naive."

"Yesterday, he said that the United Nations Security Council needed to have a meeting, pass resolutions, and hold an investigation to find out who was originally responsible for the chemical attacks against Syrian civilians including children," Poilievre explained ofTrudeau.

• TRANSCRIPT | Read 1st public statements by Trump, Tillerson after missile strike
• ANALYSIS | Missiles provoke bluster but Syria solution requires U.S. and Russia at the table

"Only hours later, the United States launched missile strikes against the origins of those very chemical attacks. Why is it that the prime minister continues to put all of his faith in the Security Council, which has failed to confront [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad?"

Poilievre would later suggest thatTrudeau, in supporting U.S. President Donald Trump's actions, had committed the dreaded act of flip-flopping.

In fairness to Trudeau, bombing Syria wasn'teven Trump's position Thursday. And then suddenly it was.

Prior to that, the House of Commons hadn'tbeen particularly seized with the matter.

On Wednesday, a day after the world became aware that a deadly chemical attack had occurred in the northwestern province ofIdlib, the Conservatives asked one question, while Peter Kent,their foreign affairs critic, made a statement declaring, without specifics, thatAssadmust be held to account.

There were zero questions about the matter during question periodon Thursday.

Of course, Syria is a deeply complicated situation that defies simple solutions. And Canada is notin a position to lead an invasion.

But now someone else had done something, and suddenly there was support for just that sort of thing.

• Canada was briefed on and 'fully supports' U.S. strikes
• U.S.missiles strike Syriaairbaseas Trump reverses position

This being a time of two leadership races, there were all the more politicians with reason to comment. Lisa Raitt, a Conservative candidate, demandedto know the extent of Trudeau's knowledge and support of the U.S. attack on Shayrat airbase. A pair of her campaign rivals,Erin O'Tooleand Michael Chong,both issued statements supporting the American offensive, but O'Toole addedcriticismofCanada's contribution to the fight against ISIS.

NDP leadership contender Peter Julian tweeted approvingly about the comments of U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and said Canada must not intervene militarily. Leadership rival Niki Ashtoncalled for further investigation of the chemical attack.

What Trudeau knew and when

In the House, Trudeauat least had useful information to provide.

Last night, he said, the American secretary of defence briefed Defence MinisterHarjitSajjan, who promptly briefedTrudeau. Trudeau spoke with Trump this morning.

Thatmuch at least seemed to counter the charge, made byinterim Conservative LeaderRona Ambrose in a statement on Friday morning, that the Trudeau government had been "out of the loop."

• ANALYSIS | Trump's Syria strike stirs up alt-right outrage
• OPINION | Trump should listen to his instincts and stay out of the Middle East

"In the face of such heinous war crimes, all civilized peoples must speak with one voice," Trudeau explained. "That is why Canada fully supports the United States' limited, focused action to degrade the Assad regime's ability to launch such attacks. We continue to support diplomatic efforts with our international partners to resolve the crisis in Syria."

Six years into the conflict, it's not clear what hope there is for diplomacy. But nor is there an obvious case for Western intervention. Or even any indication that Trump wants to go for another round of missiles.

Trudeauwouldn't tell the House why he was newly certain of Assad'sguilt, but he would later tell reportersthat it was the Americans who provided such assurances.

With his second question, Poilievre declared himself unpersuaded by the prime minister's stated support for the Americans.

"When will the prime minister stop being so dangerously naiveand confront this dictator and tyrant?'" he asked, after again dismissing the UN's effectiveness.

Exactly how the Canadian government should confront Assad was left unspecified.

• ANALYSIS |U.S. attack on Syrianairbaseraises expectations
• TIMELINE | Key moments in the Syrian conflict

In response to further mockery of the United Nations by Conservative MP Grard Deltell, Trudeau stressed his government's belief inmultilateralism and a diplomatic solution in Syria, but he would also speak, vaguely, of sending a message to those who support the Syrian government: they are "partly responsible for these chemical attacks."

Under questioning by the NDP's Murray Rankin, Trudeau seemed to implythe Trump administration wasn'tplanning further strikes.

Unknown impact of missile strikes

When Rankin was later questioned by reporters, he said that without more information, New Democrats weren't in a position to say whether they supportedthe American attack.

"It is not clear what the impact of these missile strikes will be on the conflict," the NDP said in a statement.

• Q&A |CBC answers your questions on chemical attacks and aftermath

Indeed, by the afternoon, it was being reported that the airfield targeted on Thursday night was still in operation.

By Monday, the House might be more interested in other things.

With any luck, by the time the prime minister next needs to speak to the House about an urgent matter,the parties will have worked through their current relationship issues.