I believe I clearly explained the situation. I see that no one doubts the fact that the events I recounted did in fact occur. I ask that you show some understanding. It is important to realize that, under the circumstances, had I denounced Mr. Vaillancourt, I would have had to take up a battle from which I would not have escaped unscathed. The worst thing is that, since he had not committed any offence and would most likely not have been charged, he probably would ultimately have been seen as being more credible than myself. I therefore felt the best solution was to just move on, wait until there was evidence, and contribute to the government's efforts to investigate the situation in Laval.
However, I would just like to reiterate that this investigation did not allow it to secure evidence to support our suspicions. The fact is that a lot of administrative suggestions were made.
If individuals who disclosed this sort of thing have to face this kind of questioning subsequently, perhaps we should think of a way to encourage them to make such disclosures. A lot of potential whistleblowers might not like to receive the treatment that I have received, and this could dissuade them from making such disclosures.