The big news over the weekend was that Canada joined with the UK, Australia and Portugal in formally recognizing a Palestinian state ahead of the start of the UN General Assembly. The statement from the prime minister was all about how this was about advancing the two-state solution, and that Hamas was a terrorist organisation that oppresses Palestinians and that they can’t play any role in the future governance of the Palestinian state, and so on. It was a bunch of paragraphs about “Hamas bad.”

The Conservative response? To declare that this was recognition of the “Hamas state,” and that this is just a distraction from all of his domestic “failures” and that it rewards terrorism. Conservative MPs over social media demanded to know that the borders were, or why the conditions about Hamas releasing hostages before this recognition weren’t met, as though the material circumstances on the ground hadn’t also changed in that time. Other reaction from civil society was decidedly mixed. And the situation is incredibly complex, and this move could make it even more so.

What I wouldn’t be surprised is if the Conservatives don’t try to do something like setting a cat among the pigeons by putting this to a vote on one of their upcoming Supply Days, by bellyaching that they didn’t get to vote on this in the first place (which is not how foreign policy works, as it’s a Crown prerogative), but they would try and use a non-binding vote in order to try and expose the divisions in the Liberal caucus that they can then try to exploit, as they did more than once when they were in power during the Harper years. Tried and true tactic, and I’m waiting for it to happen.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack early Saturday morning killed three and wounded at least thirty across nine regions. NATO members are meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Russian violation of Estonian airspace.

Good reads:

• Mark Carney is in New York to attend the UN General Assembly, where he is expected to be in high demand with other leaders.
• The two works François-Philippe Champange keeps using ahead of the budget are “generational investment.”
• Senior Sources™ say that the “Buy Canadian” policy should be fully in place next year, which is going to put us off-side all of our other trading partners.
• The head of the Royal Canadian Navy talks about the recruitment challenges for the service, particularly in harder trades.
• Here is a look into Dawn Farrell, who leads the Major Projects Office, and what she hopes to accomplish in the role.
• Federal public sector unions say that plans to reduce the size of the civil service through attrition is misleading (and it leads to capability gaps).
• Some Jewish Canadian groups are calling on political parties to stop using antisemitism as a prop to score political points.
• Poilievre says he wants to cut “billions” from the civil service (because he hates government), and that he would seek a “tariff-free deal” with Trump. (Delusional)
• Danielle Smith is defending her plan to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause by repeating falsehoods about trans youth and saying the courts will take too long.
• Kevin Carmichael contemplates the disruptive effect digital asbestos is having on youth employment, and why there will be long-term consequences.
• Althia Raj looks ahead to the budget, and the calculations the opposition parties are making as to whether or not to support it.
• Paul Wells ponders the federal factum to the Supreme Court on the Law 21 case, and the resulting “debate” that has gone to rhetorical excesses.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.