One of the more interesting stories that was out first thing Friday morning was that of new NDP MP Heather McPherson, the party’s only Alberta MP, who mused openly to the CBC that she would be willing to take on a Cabinet position if prime minister Justin Trudeau offered it – but she wouldn’t cross the floor for it. Hours later, she backtracked on Twitter, saying that she obviously wouldn’t take a Cabinet position – likely because it was pointed out to her what that would entail. While this is obviously a rookie mistake, it might be worth delving into a bit more for the sake of everyone’s edification.

First of all, having an opposition MP in Cabinet – who remains an opposition MP and who hasn’t crossed the floor – is pretty much a coalition, even if you don’t want to call it that. Being in Cabinet, she would be bound to Cabinet confidentiality and solidarity, meaning that she would have to vote with the rest of the Cabinet, even if the rest of the NDP were opposed; and confidentiality could be a very sticky issue if they want to ensure that she’s not going to divulge Cabinet secrets to her caucus colleagues behind the closed doors of the caucus room (which in and of itself has its own confidentiality convention that, like Cabinet confidentiality, is intended to let the members have free discussions without then being picked off by media when their views are off-side from the rest of the Cabinet or caucus, as the case may be). Now, there are exceptions to how this can work, such as in New Zealand where they have developed a system where they could swear her in as a member of the Privy Council and bring her into Cabinet discussion where appropriate by not make her a full member of Cabinet (as they do with Green MPs in that government), but I’m not sure what the utility would be in this case, when there are better options available to Trudeau (such as appointing a Senator, which is more in keeping with our own traditions and one of the reasons why our Senate exists in the way it does). Regardless, the point is moot, and that’s as far as the thought exercise extends.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190232873477058562

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190247532246556672

More Encana outrage

Because the Encana story continues to swirl, here is a pretty damning piece of financial analysis of the company’s underperformance, which their relocation to the US wouldn’t solve. That being said, one of my corporate sector contacts reached out after reading yesterday’s post and said that his estimation was that this relocation was more likely to take advantage of the Trump corporate tax cuts (characterized as irresponsibly low) rather than anything that Canada had done wrong – and that this was not the first company who was taking moving to take advantage of those taxes while not being upfront about it. Nevertheless, the other bit of criticism in the aether yesterday was the fact that Justin Trudeau had not come out to say anything about the decision, which just makes Alberta feel worse – though, to play devil’s advocate, I’m not sure what exactly Trudeau could say given Encana’s reassurances that they’re not shedding jobs or investment, and the fact that anything he says is going to be spun by Jason Kenney’s outrage machine. Yes, the PMO should have made someone available to comment on Thursday rather than just wait for the pre-arranged interview with Amarjeet Sohi on Friday afternoon (and chalk up another own-goal for Trudeau’s incompetent comms team), but I’m failing to see what he could have said that would make the situation better.

To that end, John Geddes talks to some environmental law professors to get better perspective on Bill C-69 and finds that lo, all of the apocalyptic language around the bill isn’t actually warranted, particularly with the draft regulations to accompany the bill that are being circulated. Elsewhere, Gary Mason calls out Kenney’s ego for his absurd demands that only serve to stoke anger – but he fails to make the connection that it’s what Kenney’s goal is.

Good reads:

• In a speech to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Chrystia Freeland touted the Ukrainian diaspora as a unifying element in Canada, and her Alberta roots.
• Premiers held a conference call yesterday, where Jason Kenney tried to ringlead them into standing up to Justin Trudeau (but he didn’t get many takers).
• Ukrainian officials are saying that asking Canada to engage in peacekeeping in their eastern regions is their “plan B” if implementation of the Minsk Agreement fails.
• More talk of divisions in the Conservative caucus, as they decide whether or not to blame Andrew Scheer personally for their election loss.
• Amidst this, there is more talk about how Scheer’s inability to articulate a supportive position on same-sex marriage could be his undoing.
• Some 103 NDP campaigns won’t be getting their expenses reimbursed because they didn’t meet the vote threshold, which will further strain the party’s finances.
• Jason Kenney’s government may help to fund a court challenge by a pro-development Indigenous group against Bills C-48 and C-69.
• Kevin Carmichael pays particular note to comments by the Bank of Canada governor around fiscal policy, and the signals it sends to governments.
• Chantal Hébert gives a rebuke of Trudeau’s conduct post-election.
• Susan Delacourt pans the move to ban political ads from Twitter as it’s not where the problem lies, particularly over that medium.
• Andrew Coyne offers a lengthy reflection on modern conservatism, and whether its populist impulses have smothered any ideological foundation.
• Colby Cosh responds to Coyne with a further reflection on how carbon pricing has straddled the left-right ideological divide.
• My weekend column looks at how Jason Kenney and Scott Moe are making absurd demands with the sole goal of stoking anger for their own purposes.

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