Now, this gets into another area that becomes really difficult in this whole process, and it's Mr. Arès. Mr. Arès, at the time, had written documentation. We're missing that in a lot of things. It's one person's word against other people's word. But we've got e-mails from Mr. Arès, going over in detail how this intervention violated the rules in place—in detail—and saying this had been taken to the corporate level. His hands are washed clean of it. And if I understand his e-mails, he said the deputy minister of economic development did not agree with this decision.
So we've got somebody from the Department of Public Works—another good public servant—who's writing at the time.... I know he had a conversion later on, but at that time he was very upset, so upset that he wrote e-mails, and I imagine his supervisors weren't happy about it. But he was very critical of that decision. He was saying that his communications with Mr. Gladu indicated they were not in favour of this move.
Do you not agree that when you put the evidence of Mr. Gladu together with Mr. Arès', it puts a real cloud over your testimony, sir?