I think my colleague has very carefully demonstrated the need to stay on the committee's existing course of study. We have an open government study that we've been working on for months now. If we ever want it to reach fruition, we have to zero in on the final witnesses, drafting, and approval of that report. This could potentially be a multi-day distraction from that effort.
Previously we passed motions for studies to occur and scheduled them later on down the road. An example is the study on the CBC and access to information. I think that motion was passed a couple of months ago, but it was agreed by committee members that the study would occur after we were done with open government. But here we have Mr. Easter insisting that we have an “urgent” study of a matter that has already been dealt with.
That brings me to my second point. Minister Kenney has acknowledged the error. He said that his parliamentary letterhead should not have been used. He apologized for that and took responsibility. The staff member in question who executed the error has resigned, and Minister Kenney has accepted that resignation.
I'm not sure what more could be “urgent”, given that all of these matters have been dealt with succinctly and swiftly by the minister. This matter can continue to be interrogated in the House of Commons, as it was today in question period. I'm very sure the official opposition will pose plenty of questions on it there. But to suggest that we need to derail our entire work schedule here in order to review a matter that has been largely dealt with is erroneous.
Thank you.