I am not overly worried about Bev Oda’s recent misdeeds concerning KAIROS (her clothing choices, which constitute an antiquated misdeed, are a different matter).
What she did is clearly wrong and it has been labelled as such. There is little sympathy for her.
Her graceless exit from politics, whether immediate or eventual, seems inevitable at this point in time. She is an unremarkable minister who made a remarkable mistake – an insult to the very people and public institutions that she supposedly serves. I take solace in the fact that the majority of people have criticized her transgressions.
“What did she do?” you ask. Well, it is more a matter of what she failed to do. In 2009, the Canadian Development Agency sent a note to Bev Oda, Minister of International Cooperation, recommending that the multi-faith-based aid group KAIROS receive ongoing funds from the agency.
In her capacity as minister, Bev Oda declined to offer the organization additional money. This part is uncontroversial. The controversy begins with her defence of the decision. First, the original note prepared by the Canadian Development Agency was doctored – someone inserted the handwritten word “not” before the word typed word “approve” to imply that continued funding for the organization was not recommended.
Then, when pressed on the matter by a House of Commons committee, Oda claimed that she did not know who altered the note or why it was altered. During Question Period, however, Oda later admitted that she ordered the doctoring of the note. The latest update: Bev Oda was out of the country when she signed the note via electronic signature.
All of this raises three critical questions: 1) who doctored the note? 2) who authorized Bev Oda’s signature? and 3) who will accept responsibility for this mess? Clearly, she is not an openly accountable minister.
What worries me in an overtly way is the arguments presented by her supporters. The suggestion that a minister – or any government official for that matter – can deliberately mislead the Canadian public without reprimand appals me. Supposedly, I am under the false impression that politicians should be honest and accountable to the people who elect them.
She (or someone beneath her) made a mistake that could have a negative impact on the current government’s electoral chances. This I understand. However, I also understand that the proliferation and acceptance of government lies in support of efforts to mitigate such mistakes will have a negative impact on Canadian democracy.
I would hope, and I am sure you agree, that the latter situation takes precedence over the former one. In fact, I do not think they should be compared or equated in any way, but this has not been the case.
Her greatest supporter, it appears, is the prime minister himself. Stephen Harper has defended her choices in public. He has gone out of his way to criticize her critics.
This says a lot. In theory, Oda is responsible to the Canadian public and their elected representatives. The reality of this government, nevertheless, gives rise to a different situation. She is really accountable to the prime minister and him alone. He is her boss.
Ultimately, it is him who decides if she should remain in cabinet or take a seat in the back. I do not hold this authority and neither do the 62 per cent of Canadians who voted in support of the opposition parties.
His authority stems from the comparably smaller number of people who supported him. They have an exclusive claim on his interests and loyalties. In turn, his actions are done to their exclusive advantage.
To our detriment, Harper has made it clear that Oda’s actions are both justified in terms of her ministerial powers and acceptable in terms of their outcome. On the surface, this suggests indifference, but it actually means something much worse: moral corruption.
Again, I am not greatly bothered by the problems surrounding Bev Oda when considered on their own merits. What truly bothers me is how blatantly dishonest the Harper government has been in addressing its proven dishonesty.
I would not love to sign their pink slips.
Yours e-sincerely, William Wilson
–William Wilson
Second-year master’s in legal studies