Roundup: Unger vs Black

Posted on by

Further to Senator Black’s resignation from the Conservative caucus, we have a couple of reactions – first, an interview with Black by Jen Gerson, in which Black expresses his excitement for the “uncharted territory” of greater independence in the Senate. Second, a somewhat bitter response from fellow “elected” Alberta Senator Betty Unger, who repeats some of Senator Plett’s accusations about Black’s attendance, and goes on to assert that senators should be in a caucus to give them some kind of accountability. Oh, and then there’s Kady O’Malley, who notes the “disappointment” of Senator Tannas in his response to Black’s decision, in which she reminds them in her own Pollyana-ish way that yes, they can still work together even if they’re no longer in caucus together.

Among the responses are some particular problems with the conceptions of how a caucus can and should operate, and part of that stems from the fairly unique situation of how the Senate was being run under the Harper government. Unger is correct in that being part of the national caucus brings more perspectives and allows more participation (which is one of the reasons why Trudeau’s decision to banish senators from his caucus was short-sighted), but her conception of caucus providing “checks and balances” to senators is a bit mystifying, particularly considering that there is little that a caucus could do to actually control a senator given that they have institutional independence under our constitution. Sure, they can threaten them with being removed from a committee or from participating in travel, but that’s the extent of it, and if a senator feels a particular conviction on an issue, then that’s a risk they can and have taken before.

As for Black, being part of a caucus in the Senate doesn’t mean that he is forced to toe any particular party line, whether they achieve consensus on a position or not. Granted, since he has been in the Senate, it was operating in a more tightly controlled environment because the Conservatives had largely trained their new senators to believe that this was the norm, that they could be whipped, along with some cajoling about how they needed to go along with things under the rubric of “you want to support the prime minister, don’t you?” And that would usually cow them into line, never mind that there are no actual levers of power for a government to assert in the Senate. Black and Unger both have always been in the Senate where they were told that there was this expectation, and now that they are in opposition and the party is in a leadership convention, they are suddenly finding themselves without that same comfortable feeling of obligation to the person who appointed them (never mind their “elected” status – it certainly didn’t mean anything for their “elected” predecessor Bert Brown, who insisted that senators had to dance with the one who brought them). Black obviously decided that he felt freer in this environment and wanted to push it further. That’s his prerogative; Unger feels the need for structure, and that’s legitimate, so long as she knows that she has that institutional independence and that there is no such thing as caucus control for a senator (and I’m not sure that she does, given her Senate “upbringing”).

But honestly – between the fetishisation of “independence” and the wrong-headed notion of “checks and balances” that don’t actually exist, neither are really on the side of the angels on this one.

Good reads:

  • Mike Duffy is refusing to repay $17K in improper expenses, arguing that the judge in his trial deemed them proper. Um, pretty sure not criminal ≠ proper.
  • BC is asking for more time before ratifying the new CPP enhancement deal.
  • While Jane Philpott is at the International AIDS Conference in Durban, here’s a look at the HIV epidemic among Canada’s Indigenous population.
  • Judy Foote blames the Phoenix pay system woes on a lack of training and underfunding by the previous government.
  • Catherine McKenna says she wants a national carbon price set before the end of the year.
  • Chrystia Freeland was in the UK to talk trade, and is giving technical advice on post-Brexit trade, given that the UK no longer has the necessary negotiators.
  • Justin Trudeau and Freeland are both confident that a possible WTO challenge by Brazil (home to Embraer) over Bombardier bailouts would be dismissed.
  • Liberals will be fanning out across the country over the summer to promote their Canada Child Benefit.
  • It turns out that the RCMP didn’t destroy documents related to Harper’s trip to India in 2012 – they just couldn’t find them. Of course.
  • Lisa Raitt is “leaning positively” toward running for leader (but one wonders how her French is going to stack up).
  • On a somewhat related note, some Conservatives are grousing that it’s the D-list candidates that are running for the leadership.
  • Jane Taber talks to Chrystia Freeland about her work-life balance.
  • Susan Delacourt talks to Marco Mendicino about his steep learning curve as a new MP and “giant slayer.”
  • Scott Reid asserts that Trudeau has moved beyond “honeymoon” territory, and that his polling numbers are indicative of something more.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a relatively accurate look at parliamentary staffers (though there are details I would quibble about).