- Harper: 'Parliament, How Do I Obstruct Thee, Let Me Count The Ways'

Posted: 11:17 AM on March 12, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Tart, Want a Tory's straight answer? First guess the secret correct question, Tabatha Southey, Globe and Mail, Mar. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tabatha-southey/want-a-torys-straight-answer-first-guess-the-secret-correct-question/article1939575/

(take off of from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Sonnet 43, although if she knew Harper, like we know Harper, perhaps she would have written it that way)

[Lukiwski:
"Precise answers to questions do not constitute contempt," said Lukiwski, who blamed Liberal MP John McKay for not questioning Oda with enough diligence.

"The minister's response referenced an activity within CIDA, which was the subject of the inquiry," he added.

"She was not asked about the decision process, insofar as the minister and officials were concerned."

However, transcripts of the foreign affairs committee on Dec. 9 suggest that McKay was cut off by Tory chairman Dean Allison.
http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/harper_govt_answers_to_accusations_against_oda/6b9495b7
(CTV, 18 Feb.'11)]

Tabatha Southey:

"Perhaps some of you are now remembering these words from the Oliphant commission: “For Mr. Mulroney to attempt to justify his failure to make disclosure in those circumstances by asserting that Mr. Sheppard did not ask the correct question is, in my view, patently absurd…” Replace the word “patently absurd” with the word “trailblazing” and I think we have our official rules down.

The current custodian of those rules seems to be Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who, interestingly enough, has done everything he can to distance himself from Mr. Mulroney."

Tabatha Southey, interesting article, a bit slow off the start.

One would expect a defendant being cross-examined while on trial for some criminal offence to be so 'sharp' in their answers as you so parody, and it would likely be on the sound advise of their counsel

But, as a Minster of the Crown it is my submission that if there was more then Ms. Oda ought to have been forthcoming, whether asked to or not. It simply does not do for her to do otherwise. And certainly, in my opinion, she has a duty and obligation, as a Minister, to so explain.

By not so doing, and by the events that transpired afterward in the House of Commons and out, in particular, but not necessarily limited to this, John Baird answering her questions, one can only wonder what's going on

Baird did not do Oda any favours thereby

It only darkened the optics, along the lines of : 'if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, why all the evasions'

Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion that Ms. Oda had a legitimate explanation but did not tell it because she was not asked it, is ^not, to me, a mitigating factor

Quite the opposite, it raises the specter, again to me, of an attempt to obscure thereby obstructing

If Minister Oda had further information or belief that might, reasonably, have thrown light on what happened, she ought to have been forthcoming. Not merely because it was, to me, her duty as a Minister, but because, as we saw what happened, otherwise it may cast doubt in some minds

It may be that Ms. Oda has an explanation, and I am reserving judgement on that account

But, by not volunteering it and by Baird answering for her in Parliament, I think she has brought this all upon herself, and it in and of itself might be construed as contempt for Parliament, deliberate? - you judge.

Perhaps there is another question to ask the Minister:

"Were you given advice, instruction, recommendation, suggestion in how to answer the questions put to her by the Committee. Or, did at any time prior to appearing in front of this Committee have any discussion with anyone regarding what may transpire at this Committee or give or get, whether directly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertently, any information regarding same, or discuss with anyone any of the circumstances surrounding the placement or insertion or addition of any markings on said document of any nature, whether before or after you had signed it, no matter how it was done or by whom?"

Anyway, that's my effort and perhaps with a few follow up questions of like nature in response to the answer, the Minister would be forthcoming. That would certainly be interesting but somehow I doubt she would have been forthcoming.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html