What's the big deal with Oda?

  This is the week where we find out whether the controversy over Bev Oda is a big deal or not a big deal. If it lingers in the headlines over the parliamentary break, conventional wisdom has it, then this minister will be gone. I'm actually away from the capital (even the country) as I write this, but I've been giving some thought to what's a big deal in federal politics these days. 

Some people like history that's filled with big stuff -- epic battles, struggles against the enemies, and so on. Others realize  that this is the history written by the victors, as the old saying goes -- all the greys edited out, whether that's the ordinary life of the people who stayed home while the soldiers fought or the sketchy stuff that makes it difficult to tell who was really on the side of good and who was on the side of evil. 

For people who see the world as a black-and-white struggle, there's going to be a temptation to say that this Oda business is either irrelevant (her supporters), or utterly contemptible (her detractors.) I think it's a big deal, but not because it's one single "test of democracy," as Liberals argue. 

I think, when we look back over the history of this period, that the Oda case  will be seen as a cultural marker -- a revealing moment for its sheer banality.  The scribbled "not" is a classic case of history being written by the winners, or in this case, the political masters in Ottawa at the moment. No big one, Oda's supporters say. Happens all the time. Nothing to see here. And indeed it did happen to Canada's chief statistician, to the private investigator in the Helena Guergis controversy and the diplomats who wanted to tell the truth about Afghanistan. The people with  power write the official record. And if facts or truth are distorted on the way to the greater good, well, that's the way it goes and the way it's always been. 

To my mind, Bev Oda is neither an epic figure of good or evil (despite, as one blogger wrote recently, her questionable decision to present herself in public in sunglasses, all in black, smoking, as a Russian mobster might.)That "not" however, is a big deal, because it tells us something about what's seen as acceptable behaviour in  a government that is convinced that it's always embroiled in a classic  battle of good against (Liberal, left) evil.

You want to know why this government spends so much time controlling its "message" and its portrayal in public? Because it's trying to enforce power over who writes its history -- criticism is tantamount to taking the enemies' side. We reporters in Ottawa are used to this by now. 

The Bev Oda controversy is not staying in the headlines  because we journalists are trying to bring down the government (much as many Conservatives love to believe). Most of us actually aren't in that good-versus-evil frame of mind. It's being reported because it was an open, ham-handed effort to distort the record. And it's part of a pattern. (See cases above -- there are more.) So is it a big deal? Yes. Precisely because it's so ordinary, and it's being portrayed that way by Oda's supporters. 

 

 

Comments

[D. Peturk]

Susan, the Liberal friendly/Toronto media will play this until ratings start going down for newspapers (Star and G&M) and TV (CBC and CTV).

Canadians are now tuning it out as another Oppositon/media fiasco about nothing.

Same as prorogation, census, detainees, and what ever else the Liberal war room/media can dream up.

Pathetic really.

[Esmé Comfort]

What is that quote about the "banality of evil"?

[Janice]

It is before the Speaker of the House. I believe that Speaker Milliken will rule that Bev Oda did not lie to the House. It was and is her perogative whether to approve departmental fundings....even to left wing politicized Church groups. Most readers know and expect you to go to the defense of the former (left wingy things) while routinely ridiculing the latter (Faith and Church).

[paul b.]

Delacourt and others in the media say they are not trying to bring the government down?

Than why not report the actual facts of the so-called scandal instead of willfully ignoring the major points that point to this being an opposition parties-msm witch hunt. I'm talking about the testimony from the head of Cida in committee testimony:

" Ms. Margaret Biggs (President of CIDA): Yes, I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice.

This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal.

I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn’t want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative".

So Susan, please, in the interests of being fair and non-partisan, please include the above testimony as an update to your column. It certainly puts a completely different aspect to the story out there where it belongs. When journalists like Greg Weston run around screaming that this is an example of the government undermining civil servants and never mentioning this testimony, you can see why many on the Conservative side see this as a smear campaign.

[Tim]

Well it certainly has provided great fodder for the YouTube community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahk22ygakHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjeoc2sDf1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odYfhPUhYtI&feature=related

[John K]

Well Susan, this is an extremely light 'journalistic' piece you wrote here. You say that 'it's a big deal' because, well, it's not about the issue at all. Let me translate that for you Susan. You want us to believe that it's a big deal because you are liberal, and dislike the conservatives. Just be honest about it.

[Jim W]

I have voted both Tory and Liberal in the past federally and once NDP (Ont still regretting) So please dont complain that I am biased. From the evidence I see Mrs Oda lied, but that is not the story. Why the funding was removed, not because of Israel, because of Kairos sending the letter to Harper about Fort McMurray. They loaded up a plane load of observers, all denominations, but no Harper evangelicals, When they got back from seeing the oil slick on the river, they sent a letter to Harper and that is when the funding went away. GreenNH3 and GreenGas.cc both have evidence there is BigOil control in Ottawa. Big Oil tries to make it that Kairos is the bad guy, They are not bad, the smell is coming from the PMO, read BigOil.

[Willaim Wylie]

The very first comment over at smalldeadanimals.com, makes mincemeat of Ms. Delacourts article...here it is...

So, Susan Delacourt and her fellow media henchmen have made the controversy over Bev Oda "a big deal" for the past two weeks, and yet she's unsure whether or not it actually is a big deal.

I guess if she and her fellow henchmen ensure that Bev Oda makes the headlines "over the parliamentary break," then Bev Oda's "gone."

'Seems to be, Susan, that you're hoping this controversy is a big deal, though it's hard to know, seeing as your crystal ball's cracked. But, what the heck, trying to ruin the career of a CPC Cabinet Minister, based on being unsure that what she's done is "a big deal," is just another day's work in the Canadian Lamestream Media.

Posted by: batb at February 22, 2011 6:40 AM

Any comments Susan.. Susan.. Susan..

[Cam]

I like how "Janice" clings to the hope that Canadians will think this story is about the funding of KAIROS (though what Conservatives have against church groups is beyond me). Nope Janice it's not. It's about a lie. She lied to the House. You know it. Con MPs know it. And Canadians know it. And you guys defend her. How far far far you have come.