You used the word “sufficient“. You asked if the amount of time that elapsed was sufficient reason to find that the minister was in contempt. That is up to you to decide.
Are we convinced that the minister really had the opportunity to explain the situation, but chose to say nothing? Why? She appeared before the committee to provide some explanations. Were her explanations convincing, or not? That is for you to decide.
As Mr. McKay asked earlier, is there sufficient evidence here to find that Ms. Oda is guilty of misleading the House?