I quickly read the file, I looked at it in detail and I consulted with my office colleagues during that period. As I advanced in my work—not the work of an analyst, such as Mr. Estabrooks—I identified the facts and the legal principles involved and transmitted them to the coordinator of general principles. I never worked as an analyst, that was not my job. However, as the request was being processed, new facts which were very important and very relevant came to light, which ended up changing the very nature of the documents I was working on.
It is not unusual, in cases involving litigation, to receive access to information requests. At the time, the Access to Information Office was processing between 60 and 80 cases which exclusively concerned access requests. So we had to set priorities. For example, in cases involving a judicial review, certain deadlines must be met, and in cases involving litigation, we have to produce factums.
I find it rather unfortunate that a former member of the RCMP took advantage of his parliamentary immunity to make this kind of allegation which causes prejudice, which affects my reputation and that of the Department of Justice.
