Preparing for retirement, you left your position in November of that year. Mr. Zaccardelli, the former commissioner, appointed a new ethics assistant commissioner, Mr. Séguin. Mr. Séguin, it turns out, was Mr. Crupi's boss. We've heard in testimony that Mr. Crupi ran the so-called rigged contracting scheme at the centre of this. Mr. Séguin worked directly under Mr. Ewanovich. We heard, in fact, that he was in a lot of ways his operations person. We heard Mr. Zaccardelli state that he wanted those individuals fired as a result of the audit, yet the person in the hierarchy immediately above Mr. Crupi and working for Mr. Ewanovich ends up being appointed the new ethics assistant commissioner, the very person that whistle-blowers or, as in your words, public servants doing their duties would have to turn to.
When you take a look at the pattern that had been established--the strategic secondments, as in the case of the chief superintendent and, for instance, the constructed dismissal of Denise Revine--wouldn't it seem to have put a chill through the organization to see people removed and at the same time to see the person they're supposed to turn to, the ethics assistant commissioner, as potentially a person of interest in these investigations? Did you have any feelings or any thoughts on that particular appointment, and why that would have occurred?