Stephen Harper, Bill Casey, and the Corrective Quality of Excommunication
Bill Casey, the Nova Scotia MP ejected from the Conservative caucus for voting against the budget, has some people fighting in his corner as he considers a run as an independent.
Though some of his supporters, like Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams, are clearly troublemakers, the support being offered by the Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley Conservative riding association is more troubling. Not because of the potential political damage -- I think it would be minimal. But it does suggest that some people involved in politics are misunderstanding just what it was that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was doing when he ejected Bill Casey.
It didn't help that Stephen Harper's comments on the subject are absolute.
You see, to me this whole situation seems to mimic the situation of someone being excommunicated, and when you understand what excommunication really means, you realize there is always room for reconciliation.
But since it also requires that Bill Casey admit to making a big mistake, I don't expect this will end happily.
Bill Casey, the MP for the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, voted against the Conservative budget and so was booted out of caucus. He is now sitting as an independent.
He voted against the budget because of what he saw as an abrogation of the Atlantic Accord. Since then, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald have reached a new agreement:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper extracted one of two political thorns from his Atlantic side yesterday by signing a new deal on federal payments to Nova Scotia with its premier, Rodney MacDonald.
The agreement settles a months-long dispute between the two governments over a new equalization funding deal announced by Harper's government in last spring's budget.
"I believe this is a historic breakthrough and a thoroughly sensible way to overcome a dispute which has bedevilled successive federal and provincial governments for over 20 years," said Harper.
Stephen Harper has made it clear, though, that Bill Casey is not going to be welcome back into the caucus:
The dispute cost Harper's government an MP when Nova Scotia's Bill Casey refused to vote for the budget in the spring. Casey was booted from the Conservative caucus.
Harper said not only will Casey not be allowed back, but that the party will be running another Conservative candidate in his riding next election.
Voting against your own government on a confidence motion is bad. Very bad. Voting against your own minority government is worse. So it comes as no surprise that Casey was given the boot.
But now that there is a new deal, should he be let back in?
The simple answer is no. Excommunication does not work that way.
Let me explain the parallel. In the Catholic Church, there is the concept of excommunication. A lot of people think it makes you some sort of criminal that is less enlightened times would have made you fair game for the stake. Perhaps there is some truth in that, but strictly speaking, excommunication is meant to be a corrective measure and not a temporal punishment. When a Catholic engages in behaviour that is sinful and continues to do so despite warnings to the contrary, and especially does so openly, excommunication is a public means of delivering to the community the message that this person's behaviour is not acceptable. Otherwise Catholics would get confused. When those women in Quebec were ordained priests by a rogue bishop, the Catholic Church had to excommunicate all of them, or else she would have run the risk of Catholics believing that the rules had changed on the ordination of women.
The excommunicated is welcome back once he has recognized the error of his ways.
Of course, many would insist that they did nothing wrong, and so remain excommunicated. The Church does not follow up with even more punishment, nor does she go to extraordinary lengths to bring that person back.
It boils down to agreeing to disagree.
The parallels with the Bill Casey situation are clear. On the question of confidence, a budget vote is a whipped vote, and government MPs are required to vote for the bill. If an MP refuses, the Party and the MP agree to disagree, and the MP leaves the caucus.
If Bill Casey was not removed from caucus, MPs would get the message that voting against the government on a whipped vote is acceptable, and that is not a message any party can send.
Should Bill Casey be let back in?
Well, the problem between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia has been resolved. But that doesn't really matter.
First, it has to be noted that whatever work that was done to come to the new agreement was done without Bill Casey's help. Ejected from caucus, he could not lend a hand, and so his actions potentially weakened Nova Scotia's position. Fortunately the two remaining MPs for Nova Scotia, Peter MacKay and Gerald Keddy, we equal to the task.
Second, the act of voting against the budget is still an excommunicable offense, and remains so despite what happened since.
The real problem, though, is that Bill Casey doesn't seem to care:
"My plan now is to run as an independent, and I've told other parties that I'm going to remain an independent, and they have respected that," Casey said. "I have friends in all parties, including the Conservatives, but I'm going to remain as an independent and run as an independent.
"I hope they (the people) support me, but if they don't, I'll understand. I'm glad I did what I did."
That strikes at the heart of the issue. Unless Casey changes his position, he can't be let back in, or else MPs will get the wrong message.
On that score, of course, Stephen Harper might want to moderate his language:
The prime minister made it clear Wednesday that Casey will not be forgiven.
"When there is a federal election, there will be a Conservative candidate in Mr. Casey's riding and it will not be Mr. Casey," Harper said after he announced a deal ending the offshore revenue dispute.
Stephen Harper is not Catholic, so his understanding of sin and forgiveness comes from a slightly different tradition from mine, but I am wary of speaking in absolutes. I might have answered a question on Casey's future a bit differently: "Until Bill Casey recants his vote and demonstrates an understanding of caucus solidarity, he can't be let back in. Standing for your constituents is important, of course, but as we've demonstrated today, taking inflexible positions incurs a steep cost, while moderation and patience pays dividends."
Indeed, even the Catholic Church does not speak in absolutes when it comes to these things. A person dies excommunicated, so does that mean he goes to Hell? Catholics and non-Catholics might be surprised to know that the Church does not say one way or the other. The Church maintains a list of saints, but not a list of the damned. In the Catholic funeral rite there is a phrase spoken by the priest that goes "we commit the soul of the departed to Your mercy". What that means is that whatever we think of this person's sinfulness (obviously short of excommunication in this case, since the excommunicated don't get a Church funeral), we don't presume to put limits on God's capacity to forgive, even after death.
Drawing from that tradition, I would have avoided stating that there was no future for Bill Casey in the Conservative Party.
But it would have to be made clear that as long as Bill Casey continues to talk the way he does, expressing no regret or second thoughts, there is no way he would be let in.
Of course, this is politics, not the question of the soul and eternal damnation. Bill Casey has become a lightning rod for people who want to send a message to Stephen Harper. Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland has said he will support Bill Casey's run. The riding association of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley wants Bill Casey to run as their candidate, and will presumably resubmit Casey's nomination papers.
How do you neutralize this issue? Perhaps the best way is to stand firm, but with that hint of flexibility.
Yes Casey did what he thought was right. Of course no one believes he was acting with malice. But you can be mistaken without being malicious. As with any party in this system, there are times for public disagreement, and times that require solidarity. He chose a time when solidarity was needed to disagree, and until he recognizes the potential damage that could have been wrought, both for the immediate results of that vote and for the long term unity of this party, he is not welcome. It is not a pleasant choice for us to make, but a simple one, for there are no other path that we can take and still be acting in the best interests of this party and of the Canadians who support us. The door is always open, but until Bill Casey can recognize why we had to do what we did, and why we were right to do so, we will have to continue along a different path, and we expect the riding association of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley to join us. Because this is also one of those situations, unpleasant as it is, that requires solidarity.
I don't know if that would do the trick. Maybe nothing will help and this fire will just have to die out over time. It doesn't help that people are cheering for Bill Casey. It's giving him resolve that is misplaced. At the very least, he ought to be considering if people like Danny Williams really have Bill Casey's best interests at heart.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Bill Casey Stephen Harper Conservative Party Canada Danny Williams Rodney MacDonald Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia Peter MacKay Gerald Keddy Atlantic Accord excommunication
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Bill Casey did the right thing--he stood by and for his constituents. This is something that 99% of MPs do not have the courage to do. This is, after all, supposed to be a democracy, isn't it? We have always been told that our MPs speak for us in Parliament. We are told to vote so our wishes can be represented in Parliament. So Bill Casey does that and he is booted? What is democratic about this? So it was a whipped vote--what is democratic about that--we hated it when the LIberals did it.
I remember, as a Reformer we were told by our MP, Grant Hill that he takes our wishes to Ottawa, not the other way around. Then when many of us on the Board and the majority of people who responded to our questionairre re merger stated they didn't want the PC/CA merger, Hill told us that he has to answer to Ottawa. Great--we just lost our voice!
This is Harper acting like a dictator. What else is new. I imagine there will be much more of this before it changes.
As for McKay being a strong voice for NS--yeah, right--he is a proven liar and will say whatever he has to to stay in power. I guess power is more important than doing what is right for the country?
Posted by: George at October 15, 2007 05:33 PM
My question to Mr Casey would be: why do you want to stand for the Conservative Party? After all, his recent actions and statements suggest that he does not have faith in the party, the government or Prime Minister Harper. Consider:
He voted against the budget that was brought forward by this government – a fundamental policy document of any government.
By voting against the budget, he also voted that he did not have confidence in this government.
In an October 13, 2007 story in the Chronicle Herald, he stated of the Prime Minister, “I don’t care for what he does”.
In a June 8, 2007 press release, he expressed his satisfaction in sitting as an Independent “Progressive Conservative” {whatever that might be}
Throughout this whole matter concerning the Atlantic Accord, he has chosen to act as though he were a member of the opposition by publicly undermining the government rather than working as a team player within the Conservative caucus as Mr. Mackay and Mr Keddy have done (with a positive outcome).
A CTV internet story dated October 14, 2007, suggested that he trusts neither the Harper government nor Premier MacDonald concerning the recent agreement – “Casey expressed doubt about last week’s agreement”
If this government and Prime Minister are so unacceptable, why would Mr. Casey want to be part of the caucus? Furthermore, why would Conservative supporters entrust Mr. Casey with their vote if he cannot be trusted to stand with the rest of the federal team when a challenge presents itself?
Larry
Amherst, NS
Posted by: Larry at October 15, 2007 06:02 PM
It's about time bluster-butt Williams cut the buffoonery and bombast, he's acting like a fool, a real clown. How would he like to put up with someone in his government voting against his budget?
Brainless all around. Casey isn't too swift either. He's all for Mr. Casey at this point, the dispute with his province has been resolved. If Harper were to tolerate such behaviour he'd be getting into the same problems as the Liberals.
Casey should apologize and maybe consider going back to whatever he did in life before politics.
Posted by: Libby at October 15, 2007 06:46 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative and generally support PMSH but this is an example of why I don't like living in a parliamentary democracy - it gives parties power, not constituents (nor the MPs that are supposed to represent constituents but instead are forced to represent their parties). I don't have an opinion on Mr. Casey or his budget vote (I live in Joe Comuzzi's riding who got ousted from Liberal party voting for the same budget) but wish him luck as an independent - we need more of them in this country, I think. Without 'party' financial support in an election tho', his odds of winning are probably lessened substantially and he will be influenced to choose a party to access $$$.
Posted by: at October 15, 2007 06:46 PM
Harper does sound too hard line on this issue. I hope that he is giving his response some serious reflection and will come up with a way to sound strong and yet flexible if Casey agrees to recognize his error in the manner in which he attacked Harper and the Conservative Party. Because like others have said, he has made some pretty damning attacks on Harper, so of course its difficult for Harper to welcome him back.
Posted by: southernontarioan at October 15, 2007 08:10 PM
Properly said, Steve.
PM - don't sign his nomination papers.
Just like Trudeau wouldn't for some, just like Jean Chretien didn't.
It's the way it is. If Bill doesn't like it go back to selling cars.
Posted by: Lemon at October 15, 2007 08:18 PM
It's over for Casey, he won't be running as a Conservative, rightly so.
He's accepting "help" from Buffoon Williams who is vowing to campaign against Harper. Between Danny and Billy they've been pretty childish with the name calling and slagging Harper. Neither of them should get any more air time but the MSM will seek them out, what else have they got to do? Their Liberals are in one fine mess,they're even angry with Chretien for adding to the Liberal woes!
Posted by: Libby at October 15, 2007 08:49 PM
"In a June 8, 2007 press release, he expressed his satisfaction in sitting as an Independent “Progressive Conservative” {whatever that might be}"
Bingo, there's the reason why he's not being let back in.
The #1 priority for any conservative leader, and especially a conservative PM, is party unity. You can't allow an MP to publicly divide the party into opposing camps like that.
If Casey would do this during a confidence vote, what would he say and do during an election? The press would hunt him down trying to get any comment out of him.
Harper has learned that its better to have those who can't control their mouths out of the party where their comments will do less damage (ie: Garth Turner, Larry Stinson).
Lastly, Harper doesn't even have to refuse the nomination papers. The candidate agreement documents stipulates that you have to support the party core beliefs and policies. If you go around describing yourself as a "Progressive Conservative" who doesn't feel comfortable in the CPC, then you can't follow the candidate nomination agreement.
Posted by: at October 15, 2007 10:01 PM
Larry, "In a June 8, 2007 press release, he expressed his satisfaction in sitting as an Independent “Progressive Conservative” {whatever that might be}"
How old are you? Was this your first Federal Election (2006)? Do you really not know what a "Progressive Conservative" is? Do you know what a "Tory" is?
Posted by: Gee2 at October 16, 2007 02:54 AM
Ahh Gee2, maybe you can learn me about politics huh?
Oh, I remember the 'Progressive Conservatives'. However, I would mock the notion of an "Independent Progressive Conservative".
Posted by: Larry at October 16, 2007 06:41 AM
I'm in PMSH's corner on this one. The offshore resources that are at the heart of the whole 'accord' issue constitutionally belong to all Canadians and not just to Bluenosers like they do in Alta. Nova Scotians are a proud bunch that have been screwed around by central Canada since Confederation and they are quick to get their hair on their back up when they sense another one coming down the track.
But in the case of the budget that set all of this off, NS would have been better off in the long run. But optics being what they are, it went over like a lead balloon. Yet, McKay and Keddy opted to sell the package on its merits while Casey took a populist route. This is a leadership issue and PMSH is doing the leading.
Just wait until NS becomes a 'have' province under this deal while ON, AB and BC are still remitting to equalization; then there'll be fireworks.
Posted by: Phil in Ottawa at October 16, 2007 07:46 AM
Mr. Casey is a rare and honourable man indeed. Not a bobblehead like the rest of Harper's goofs - and we, the taxpayers, pay to have people sit in a seat to fill up a room?
Hey, has Harper's bunch given you the next negative thing to write tomorrow? $$$$$
Posted by: Sam at October 16, 2007 09:02 AM
Hardly Sam. The Liberals provide enough of that for us on their own.
Posted by: Lycan Stark at October 16, 2007 09:09 AM
Would that Nova Scotia's premier had the integrity and backbone of Casey. The budget breached the 2005 Accord and was badly misrepresented. (So bad the federal official describing its impact had to issue a clarification that reversed a major element from the original description.) One would not think blind party adherence required anyone to partake in a fraud on the people of the Maritimes. Bravo Casey and bravo the constitutents. A friend just returned from Nova Scotia and observes that any good will Harper might have regained by reaching a deal on the 2005 Accord has been lost over his treatment of Casey. Harper cannot be trusted. I am a life-long consservative who will not vote conservative because of lack of trust. I have come to believe he does indeed have a scary hidden agenda--such as ending maritime support despite assurances he had changed his attitude form early positions. Harper needs the Maritimes for a majority, including Newfoundland. He will not get it. The economy is doing fine with a conservative minority and a minority they shall remain, because of his treatment of Casey, among many other things.
Posted by: murray at October 16, 2007 09:52 AM
Bill Casey voted against the budget. He did so knowing the full consequences of his actions. He claims to have acted on behalf of his constituents and the people of Nova Scotia. If he acted on principle, then this is his reward; that he stood up for what he believed in and may have in no small measure influenced the forming of the new deal that was reached.
But, he must also accept the consequences of his actions. For the good of the government and the unity of the Party, PM Harper will not bend on this issue. There is no second chance. If Casey was really acting on principle he would bow out now and throw his support behind whoever the new Candidate will be and work for the good of the Party and his constituents behind the scenes. Instead it appears Bill Casey is acting on behalf of Bill Casey, sewing more dissension in the ranks and causing the grassroots to take up sides.
Posted by: muttsrus at October 16, 2007 10:49 AM
As I've stated before (on another blog I think), this reminds me of when the Manitoba NDP goverrnment of Howard Pawley was toppled 28-27 in the Manitoba legislature in 1988 when an NDP MLA (I can't remember his name) who was not planning to run again voted against his own goverrnment's budget. I assume that all of those (including our friends in the NDP) who feel Casey should be allowed back into the caucus automatically would have been okay with the NDPer running again as an NDP candidate if that had been his desire.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 16, 2007 12:51 PM
The comments seem to break down into two camps: (1) party, party, uber alles, or (2) Parliament is comprised of elected representatives and that is where an MP's primary responsibility rests. A no-exceptions approach treats parties as ends in themselves, whereas an exception-based approach treats parties as means. Of course, just because an MP makes a conscientious departure from lock-step party voting does mean the MP made a wise choice.
Posted by: murray at October 16, 2007 01:58 PM
He won't be back. If he throws ultimatums and then quits during a very tenuous time, how can he be trusted in the future?
If I pulled that stunt at my work..."Fund my project or I quit" I'd be looking for another job...or maybe I wouldn't. On second thought, perhaps this was Mr. Casey overestimating his worth.
Posted by: northbaytrapper at October 16, 2007 02:58 PM
Bill Casey tempest in a teapot is good politics. It just gives press something to chew on. Bill Casey becomes a champion of Nova Scotians genuine Member of Parliament representing interestsof his constituents. Stephen Harper gets a reputation of iron fisted Prime Minister and tough politician that reputation scares weak opposition and wins admiration of electorate tired of spineless politicos like Stephane Dion and Paul Martin Jr. before him. If Harper's and Ignatieff's gambit to turf Dion works out and there will be no election Bill Casey will have plenty of time to sit out his penalty and return into Conservative fold. If elections are called he might get back into HoC as an independent.
Posted by: Karol Karolak at October 16, 2007 06:03 PM
Abstract paintings
Angel painting
animal paintings
ballet paintings
beach painting
Boat painting
building painting
Children painting
Christ painting
church painting
City painting
Cottage painting
Dancer painting
field painting
Floral paintings
Garden painting
Hunting paintings
impressionist painting
Knight painting
Lady painting
Landscape painting
Lighthouse paintings
Music painting
Nude painting
Oriental paintings
Piano painting
Seascapes paintings
Still Life paintings
street painting
sunset painting
Tropical paintings
Venice paintings
Village painting
wine paintingsalvador dali paintings
thomas kinkade paintings
pablo picasso paintings
vincent van gogh paintings
claude monet paintings
diego rivera paintings
Posted by: aswkin at July 17, 2008 08:07 AM
 
|
|
