Absolutely. I simply want to clarify one thing.
Mr. Keddy is right in that we were satisfied with one of the two concerns that we raised, but we would be mis-characterizing it to say I was fully satisfied.
To be fair, I just received the letter from the minister only a few minutes ago, and in conversation...did read the media reports. It's the second part, not the market issue that was raised and important, but I think it would be certainly reassuring to committee members, myself--and I can't speak for other members--but these very measures the minister talks about having been taken—I don't know what those are—to ensure it doesn't happen again.... Committee members have to be aware of the significance of this. It is not whether this particular incident turned out to be significant, but to not have processes in place in the finance department to not accidentally release, as Mr. Keddy properly points out, the budget implementation act information before it has gone to Parliament, could have serious ramifications, depending on what gets released.
This is a question of basic competence, and again we want to be fair to the minister and to public officials, but the fact this could have happened means it could happen again unless we're reassured. The two sentences in the letter I have received from the minister are certainly not enough, because I don't know what those measures are. All we have is that certain measures have been taken. I don't know what that is. I think it would give them....
Again, this is to give the minister the opportunity to clear the air and say this is what we're doing, this is why it can never happen again, because I think we would at least all agree that this happening again would be hugely problematic if the substance of the information had been of a much more sensitive and impactful nature than it was over the fitness tax credit or the other things that were announced.
Thank you, Chair.