EDUCATION Minister Peter Bjornson proved himself too clever by half again this week.

The minister, who has a reputation for obfuscation, was asked nine times during question period in the legislature on Monday why he allowed the Seven Oaks School Division to use $2 million of taxpayers' money to buy and develop land for a residential subdivision. Each time he was asked, he responded with non sequiturs to the effect that the Doer government has been more generous to school divisions than had been the previous government. In some circles -- very small circles of partisans who pay attention to the nonsense that passes for question period these days -- obfuscation is considered droll and MLAs who practise it usually are rewarded with harumphing from their colleagues and much desk thumping. That it is actually contemptuous of the process and a mockery of clever debate no longer seems to matter, at least, on the evidence, not to Mr. Bjornson.

In any event, after his show of buffoonery, Mr. Bjornson claimed that he had been brought up to speed on the issue by staff following question period, but that he had not known the facts until then.

The next day, Mr. Bjornson, confronted with documents showing prior knowledge, allowed that, well, in fact he had known about the matter a year ago but at that time it had been concluded there was nothing wrong with the development.

However, he continued, he had now learned that the matter he knew nothing about on Monday, but had approved as not a problem a year ago, needs to be investigated because, well, in fact, the Public Schools Finance Act prohibits school divisions from getting involved in land development schemes.

On Monday, Mr. Bjornson could have acted responsibly, he could have taken the question on advisement, he could have said that he had forgotten about the issue, which is the only explanation that squares with all the unnecessary convolutions that followed. Instead, he chose to be too clever, and for that he now looks to be both less than honest and most certainly less than competent.

It is a reminder that not two months ago Mr. Bjornson showed a similar lack of acuity and a similar taste for bombast when he informed reporters that codes of conduct for schools would be in place this fall because, well, regulations have to be written and of course consultations with parents are important and blah, blah, blah. In fact, a Safe Schools Charter passed by the government a year earlier required the codes be in place even as Mr. Bjornson mused about when they might be written.

It should be expected that Mr. Bjornson will now make every effort to restore his credibility by giving plain and factual answers to questions, including: How is it that it is wrong for school divisions to develop land for profit, but it's OK for the Doer government to do it in Waverley West?