Okay.
I'll go back to my previous line of questioning.
Ms. O'Gorman, I think you understand that when it comes to issues of conflict of interest, public servants have to avoid the reality and the appearance of conflict of interest. I think a similar principle would apply to professional retaliation. It's important to avoid the reality and the appearance of people facing professional retaliation for speaking to this committee. By analogy, sometimes the horse's head is in the bed just because it's a convenient place to put it, but more often than not, it might be interpreted as a message.
We had at this committee, on November 7, Mr. MacDonald testifying that you and CBSA lied about who was responsible for choosing GC Strategies. Twenty days after that, they received a letter saying they were under investigation. This was a new letter to them. About a month after that, they were advised that you had made the decision that their legal fees would not be covered.
You can tell us that this was not professional retaliation for their testimony before the committee. Whether it was purely intended as retaliation or not requires us to assess your motivation, which is something that's obviously difficult to do externally. But don't you think it obviously looks like retaliation, and would likely have the effect of chilling public servants who would otherwise be interested and willing to come before this committee to give honest and frank testimony? Doesn't the fact that so shortly after their testimony, you made the decision to pull the support for their legal fees, and they received a letter saying they were under investigation, which led to their being suspended from their jobs without pay, have at least the appearance of professional retaliation against them and their careers as a result of testimony they gave to the government operations committee?