I have a question for Mr. Spice.
You held your position until 2003. But something happened in 2006. In the memo to Mr. Pierre Lavoie, Mr. Estabrooks said he believed that Mr. Gauvin was in a conflict of interest because he had been involved in preparing the documents requested, and he is a key player in the file.
This letter was sent after you were gone, when you no longer held the position, but you were still an assistant commissioner and ethics advisor. Mr. Estabrooks believes that the mere fact that Mr. Gauvin had access to these documents represented a conflict of interest and was unethical.
You were still an ethics expert. What do you think of this situation?