Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The reviews are in

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:55am - 60 Comments

The Post, Star and Citizen editorial boards say it’s time for Ms. Oda’s exit from cabinet. The Globe wants an explanation.

She now says – in Parliament – that it was she who ordered the “not” be put in. That comment cannot be squared with her testimony at the committee. There is an onus on those who appear before committees to tell the whole truth. Stephen Harper campaigned on making the committees more effective in their work. The committees are an important vehicle for holding government to account … Ms. Oda needs to sit down again with the Foreign Affairs committee and shed some light on that “not,” and on her explanations.

Tags: , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Anon 001

    What surprises me is that nobody has yet come up with an "Ode to Oda" title yet. Clearly, the press is not being very creative these days.

    • WDM

      Bards for Bev is on the case.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      I miss Jack Mitchell!

      He'd have written the Ode.

    • CAPS

      I liked Feschuik's play on the the whole Oda rhymes with Yoda thing:

      "going all out to make this one worth watching, Oda is"

    • CAPS

      Or we could bring back the whole Wayne's World thing:

      Bev Oda is an honourable Minister, NOT!

      • MostlyCivil

        So my advice, this time in verse
        (a word, a phrase, a thought)
        Bev, keep this all from getting worse,
        avoid the use of "not".

        You said one thing in parliament
        then in committee, caught
        Your reputation's broken (bent?)
        It's time to slip the knot.

        So in conclusion, please recall
        the lessons Jesus taught
        For what doth profit such a fall
        When all this comes to naught?

        • Anon 001

          Nice! Shakespeare would have been proud.

    • Dave
    • brooster2

      Odious Odour in the Oda Odyssey

    • wsam

      Odious Oda.

    • Larry Kazdan

      Ode to Oda

      Everybody knows who pulls the reins tight
      Everybody knows the file was fixed
      Everybody knows why Oda’s out of sight
      Everybody knows the file was nixed.

      Everybody knows who must be wary
      Everybody knows who makes the calls
      Everybody knows who must be chary
      Everybody knows the heads on walls

      Everybody knows the boat is lurching
      Everybody knows somebody lied
      Everybody knows Kairos was deserving
      No one knows why they were denied

      That’s how it goes
      Everybody knows

  • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

    "Liberal Media Bias" howling to begin soon.

    "Reality has a Liberal Bias" howling to commence soon after.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      If one's a National Puss reading Con, one must be disoriented today.

  • W.B.

    Are there any investigative or even just curious reporters in Ottawa who might try to find out to what extent this is an Oda affair versus a PMO'Harper affair? Is she taking the fall or is she really responsible?

    • Blues Clair

      Hmmm… I remember that recent Conservative ad, Harper in his office, alone, working late into the night.

    • Stewart_Smith

      I think that it is almost certain that this was a high level strategic decision. (If not, Jason Kenney likely would not have known about it before he got on the plane to Israel) Moreover, Oda strikes me as someone who would not have made a decision like this without pressure. (She actually seems like a decent sort.)

      That said, everyone agrees that Oda had every right to decide not to fund, and frankly Harper (can I say that?) had every right to provide guidance to his minister. The problem I suspect is that being a decent sort, Oda was somewhat embarrassed by her actions, and would never dare point back to the PM. So she went vague, which became misleading which became lying. Again, she could certainly have stonewalled and said nothing, but being the decent sort that she is… she lack the necessary practice and discipline.

      So Oda must go for decency. No doubt the lesson from all of this is that Harper should seek to eliminate any decent person in his cabinet. Once Harper understands this lesson people like Micheal Chong, Prentice and Emerson won't be in the cabinet much longer.

      • burlivespipe

        Sure as Harper told Grewal to use the recorder, sure as Harper OK'd the 'offer' to Cadman, sure as Harper put his approval to John Howard's speech, the master chessplayer has his fingers on this… i've yet to see the puppets and marrionettes move on their own.

  • Todd

    It is a bit unfair to boot her out of cabinet when it was clearly something she did under the direction of the PMO.

    Oda wouldn't dare do something like this without permission from the centre.

    • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

      The smoking gun doesn't mean you did the murder. Harper lives by that.

    • Dot
    • burlivespipe

      It isn't that she made the decision or was just following orders… it's that she lied about it before a parliamentary committee, throwing more people Harper-like under the bus…

    • lgarvin

      So Cabinet Ministers in the Harper government should more properly be viewed as hostages acting under duress?

    • Jenn_

      She can't remain in Cabinet after lying to Parliament. But if she's being thrown under the bus for taking the heat on a decision PMO made overriding the decision she made in the first place, I'd say she need not go quietly.

  • Emily

    Bev Oda is already famous on youtube because of a previous uproar.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjeoc2sDf1k

  • gottabesaid

    Oda's not going anywhere… no firing, no resignation, no nuthin'. Bet on it.

    Sad but true.

    • lgarvin

      I dunno, I'm still expecting a resignation. Maybe as soon as today.

      When you've lost the National Post and CFRA (Ottawa's local Con Boosters) I think the situation is untenable.
      Ridicule is very corrosive, particularly when it's coming from your traditional supporters.

      • WDM

        Tom Flanagan called for her head last night too. Granted, he's outspoken when he thinks the Conservatives messed up, but still, there's not much of a Bev Oda protection society right now.

        • lgarvin

          Do you ever get the feeling that Tom Flanagan doesn't like Harper much? For a man often described as Harper's "mentor" he doesn't seem to go out of his way to be helpful, does he?

          • gottabesaid

            Tom Flanagan tells the truth as he sees it… he's not a spin doctor. To always be helpful, you have to spin from time to time. Flanagan doesn't spin (at least, not these days).

          • TimesArrow

            There seems to be bad blood over a book Flanagan wrote about Harper. Even after Flanagan offered to have it vetted and despite the fact it was mostly complimentary, Harper's reaction was to freeze TF out of his inner circle – according to Harperland anyway.

        • Thwim

          On the other hand, it's entirely possible that she might be able to turn around and say, "I signed it and then was told to fix it by the PMO and Mr. Harper", which would have the effect of keeping her in caucus indefinitely.

          At least.. that's the only reason I can understand Rob Anders still being present.. some sort of skeleton held.

          • David_M.

            Or how about "I signed it and then it got fixed by someone in the PMO without my knowledge and was told to dive in front ofthe bus for the good of the kids with rogue pens"

      • gottabesaid

        The 'Ottawa bubble' is hoppin', but people who generally don't care about politics (85 per cent of us) aren't going to care about whether Bev Oda stays or goes. Unless Harper really thinks this is going to sting him come election time — and there is no reason to believe that it will — don't expect him to change course.

        • lgarvin

          I think the problem is that even the 85% who don't particularly follow politics are still being exposed to the news and the longer this scandelette is in the news, the more those people start to form unfavourable impressions.

          People may not care about politics, but they do care about dishonesty being identified but not corrected. The longer this thing is dragged out, the more likely it will penetrate the general apathy, to the detriment of the Conservatives. That's my impression at least.

          • gottabesaid

            Well, since we're talking political calculation, I'd say the Conservatives' window for cutting Oda loose has passed. Now, getting rid of her will appear as though they're caving to the opposition, and that it took the (spit) Liberals to get them to act in principled fashion. I'm sure Harper is calculating that it's better to ride out the storm.

          • lgarvin

            Can't dispute your reasoning, Harper is nothing if not stubborn. I'm still expecting a resignation on this one though. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking.

          • TimesArrow

            They're busy trying to get the copy boy to take the fall right now. He's likely holding out for club med though – sensible lad.

          • David_M.

            If it comes it will be Friday at 5:32pm.

          • Rose21

            They do care about honesty, but they also need to have a good feel for the issue. This one is muddy as anything — I think to the average person it's just more political games. Unfortunately Oda looks weak here. I don't think political battles are her thing. A weak opponent and the Opposition will go for blood.

    • danby

      Perhaps the National Post has called for her head because they see this is a straight loss kind of issue, and the resignation will help control the damage to the Conservatives. They probably realize that Mr Harper's personality "type" will prompt him to "damage the brand" before giving in to calls for her head. This, in turn, could prompt a deeper investigation that could shed yet even more unfavourable light on the uber-control wielded by the PMO.
      Could it be the NP is trying to help someone who just can't help themselves?

  • Dave

    The Tory research office re-wrote all their press clippings this morning so that the editorials say "Bev Oda should NOT resign".

  • TJCook

    "Ms. Oda needs to sit down again with the Foreign Affairs committee and shed some light on that “not,” and on her explanations."

    And THIS time she had better tell the truth, or the Globe will be very cross indeed.

    I thought the whole point here was that a minister willing to mislead Parliament or a committee lacked the credibility to continue in that capacity. What is the Globe thinking?

  • danby

    My Bev Oda (to the tune of My Sharona, by the Knack)

    ♫ Ooh you're the one, loyal one,
    the PMO's got your back, Bev Oda,
    Ooh not like that Guergis, silly Geurgis
    She was just a pretty hack, Bev Oda
    Never gonna stop, cut and run
    Such a loyal kind.
    Never let them know, they don't know I made up your mind
    My my my i yi woo. M M M My Bev Oda…
    M M M My Bev Oda

    Ooh..have a seat and be still,
    Baird will answer those lies, Bev Oda
    No…. No talking to the press
    Let us shut down this mess, Bev Oda
    Never gonna stop, cut and run
    Such a loyal kind.
    Never let them know, they don't know I made up your mind
    My my my i yi woo. M M M My Bev Oda…
    M M M My Bev Oda

    Ooh Stand behind me, be calm
    I got it under control, Bev Oda.
    Hmmmm we gotta talk, take a walk
    just got the latest poll, Bev Oda………

    Never gonna stop, cut and run
    you know what I mean
    But somebody else, someone else
    must take one for the team
    Bye Bye Bye Bye Bye Whoo!
    B B B Bye Bev Oda
    B B B Bye Bev Oda     ♫

  • TimesArrow

    Wonder if we are getting suckered here – again! Sure, it's important that she answer for misleading [ read lying] to Parliament. Meanwhile Harper's largely avoiding another important question: If in fact Kairos did meet CIDA's critera, then why on earth are they being turned down? All Harper has said is she was right to defund them, not why? My feeling is this is a much more damaging question in the long run, and of course[ far as i can see anyway] the opposition has failed to key in on it.

    • wsam

      Good point.

      THe real scandal is the neoconservative turn the Harperites are directing Canada's foriegn policy.

    • Rose21

      Part of the problem is that criteria were being revised. It is possible that Karios met criteria when they submitted, but not by the time the process was complete. One way or the other they did not in their original proposal meet the new criteria. We know this because they have now revised their proposal to be in alignment with the new criteria. I would not be so quick to state that Oda "lied" — or even "mislead". The Opposition is going after her and some of what is being designated as misleading is in fact a deliberate misinterpretation. I am curious about how the document with the NOT inserted was made public in the first place.

  • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers
  • Geiseric

    She's still lying. There isn't public servant worth their salt that would ink that in without initialling it. Sure it puts them on the nut at the start of the trail but that's a far cry better than spending the rest of their lives knowing they hung everyone else in the office out to dry.

    • Rose21

      If it was done by an assistant at Oda's request and the "inserter" was not a signatory to the document, they would not be expected to initial it. But — of course — other signees would be, which is why without their initials, there should not be an assumption that their position was being misrepresented. My biggest complaint is that the document was not supposed to "represent" anything — it was for internal tracking purposes, and as long as the various levels knew what was going on (and Ms. Biggs said she knew), no one was being mislead by the document — somehow it got out, and that's when all the misleading started. The document was not a contract — but rather a method to make sure all the different levels approved before a cheque was released — each level, presumably being able to reject the recommendation at any point. The forms themselves have now been revised to avoid future ambiguities. I think Oda is being treated unfairly, but politics is a brutal business.

      • Geiseric

        Really? Its on Letterhead meaning the department itself is being misrepresented and as it stands now either Biggs or Singh is being personally misrepresented because at the least either one or the other signed the document without either acknowledging the change or never seeing it.

        It doesn't matter if its a contract or not. Under normal circumstances any employee pulling stunt like this would be out on their ear. Under current circumstances if it wasn't the government's idea marching them out in handcuffs wouldn't be setting precident. What's (more or less) unique about this situation is that whoever did it is enjoying the protection of a cover-up.

        It's a case of malfeasant fraud. Not that I think many are expecting to see justice. Such are not the times.

        You said it yourself, it was an aid. Oda is avoiding saying that because she's aware that her aids are also her agents. Ordered to or not, In matters legal, what her appointed agents do she does. It's a corporate accountability thing.

        Biggs knew? She's an appointee. That's conspiracy.

  • wilson

    Minister Oda didn't know the name of the staffer who wrote in NOT,
    as she was out of the country when it was written in, but did give instructions to do so.
    But committee did not ask her is she ordered the NOT.

    Seems to me that would have been a very logical question for committee to ask.
    Why didn't they (did they already know the answer?)

    Once Minister Oda makes a decision on the file,
    it is a CIDA decision,
    that comes under the file 'Ministerial responsibility'.

    Committee 'assumed' a lot,
    putting words in Minister Oda's mouth as to what she said,
    "suggested" and "implied" is not a lie, it is an assumption make by the audience.

    Perhaps in-camera, the interrogation of Minister Oda could take on a more professional air,
    and the Perry Masons can ASK the questions,
    not 'assume' her answers 'suggest' or 'imply' something.

    • TimesArrow

      "it is a CIDA decision,
      that comes under the file ministerial responsibility"

      That it is clear now is a lie.

      "Seems to me that would have been a very logical question for committee to ask.
      Why didn't they (did they already know the answer?)"

      Duh!

      "No, i did not put the not in".

      Logical assumption: you would of course tell us if you ordered it put in.

      The lenghs some partisans will descend to in order to split hairs is quite remarkable.

      • Blues Clair

        "The lenghs some partisans will descend to in order to split hairs is quite remarkable."

        I just hope wilson gets paid for her work.

        • TimesArrow

          Let's further hope it doesn't come out of taxpayers pockets.

      • Rose21

        Splitting hairs is important here, because it is in the careless interpretaion of her remarks and unfounded inferences that she is being found guilty. Her use of the word "CIDA" and the Committees assumptions are two differnet things. She is CIDA, and it was a CIDA decision. Regarding: "you would of course tell us if you ordered it put in. " I thought this at first myself, but if Oda was very narrowly focusing on exact questions asked and carefully watching how she expressed things, she might not have thought to (or otherwise been inclined to) fill in the blanks for them. I don't think there is a solid case here against her, but most people are not taking time to consider that she might be the victim of a political witch hunt.

    • brooster2

      Do you get dizzy when you spin so much?

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      If Brian Pallister were still a member perhaps we could see an interrogation that takes on a more professional air.

    • Rose21

      I totally agree with you. There is a lot of deliberate misinterpretation of her remarks, as well as careless reporting on this by the media. This is another "witch hunt" in my view. I also contend that the document was for internal processing and never intended for public disclosure — hence, once again, it is a distortion to suggest that the insertion of the "not" was intended to mislead. It was intended to reflect he decision — and under the circumstances that was the only way to do it.

Previous

Next

From Macleans