Three hand-written 'nots' don’t make a right
From Saturday's Globe and Mail, Mar. 19, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/three-hand-written-nots-dont-make-a-right/article1948079/
Why it is the Con's are saying the issue is whether Oda was merely administratively confused and not in contempt of Parliament.
Confusion was the result of Oda's testimony and not the cause.
A reading of the Speaker's ruling shows that the confusion is to which of the Oda versions of events is true and whether Oda intentionally mislead, and not on whether there was confusion on her part as to the proper administrative procedure.
It is not a question of Oda getting her hand slapped for playing fast and loose with her "not's". It is a very serious allegation of deliberately misleading Parliament.
The Speaker concluded that he "is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case."
The "doubt", clearly, refers to the minister's assertion that she had no intention to mislead the House.
If Oda, in fact, knew who signed it and under the circumstances she is now claiming, she ought to have given this information in the first instance.
I am unable to see how that is a result of confusion by Oda
Either, it is true or it is not. If it is true, either she was forthcoming of that information or she was not
If she knew it but did not give it, how is that anything other than a deliberate and intentional act, one which clearly caused confusion and thwarted the purpose of the Committee
How is that simply administrative confusion
Knowing the information and not giving it could certainly, in and of itself, be viewed as contempt.
But, here we have: knowing it, not giving it, and, apparently, saying something that goes contrary to it and
perhaps, with the deliberate intention of misleading, and all perpetrated on Parliament -
hence the contempt allegation.
Of course,
As is always the case with apparently conflicting non-contemporaneous statements, which, if either, is reflective of the truth.
There is always the possibility that Oda's current explanation 'is ^not' and her original statement 'is
And, if Oda had ^not, in fact, known the circumstance surround how the "^Not" came about, then, her original statement may very well ^not be a contempt and her now statement
(I'm
However, that raises two issues:
- whether her current statements are in contempt
and,
- then how did the "^not" get there and who is realy responsible.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5027930#T1540
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
(1545)
Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS Funding--Speaker's Ruling
[Table of Contents]
The Speaker:
". . .
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word 'not' in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word 'not', the minister addressed this matter by stating that the 'not' was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as 'unfortunate'. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this 'has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion'.
The Chair has faced a somewhat analogous situation before. In January 2002 the Minister of National Defence had made statements in the House regarding Afghan detainees that ultimately also caused confusion and led to a question of privilege being raised. In that case, two versions of events had been presented to the House. In that case, as in this one, the minister assured the House that there was no intention to mislead. At that time, in finding a prima facie case, I stated at page 8581 of the Debates of February 1, 2002, that I was 'prepared as I must be to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation'. I then went on to conclude that 'the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air'.
In keeping with this fairly recent precedent, and mindful of the ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome cited earlier, the Chair is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case. Accordingly, I will invite the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to move his motion in due course, but at the moment I will return to the hon. member for Kings—Hants to move his motion on the earlier case."
