- Excuse Me Mr. Harper, Have I Got This 'Right' Now: The Minster Was not The Confusee and ^not the Confusor.

Posted:1:22 PM on March 19, 2011

(see post below)

Reply to: johnnyblog 12:45 PM

by Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 Mar.'11: I posted:

One would expect a defendant being cross-examined while on trial for some criminal offence to be so 'sharp' in their answers

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.