If I may articulate a standard that I think I had occasion with other committees to articulate, and that is for witnesses, it's that you don't just answer a question within the four corners of the words used by the member posing the question, particularly when the question is one of a series. It's quite evident what the objective is in this series of questions. It's quite evident what's of interest to the committee. While we may in other contexts talk about not having to give evidence that's self-incriminating, we're not here concerned about that sort of thing. There's no possibility of incriminating in that sense here.
I would think it was a duty, not just of the minister but of every witness you have in front of your committees, to be sensitive to what the members' interests are and to answer the questions fully. If you have information that's relevant to what's being asked, it should be volunteered, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically not within the four corners of the question asked.
That's a general rule of practice. I'm not here commenting on Ms. Oda and whether she should or should not have answered your question differently.