Merci.
I just have one question I'd like to put to you, Monsieur Ménard. With the hindsight of the years.... And I agree with Mr. Siksay entirely that you've come here with extremely, extremely high credibility and an excellent reputation and certainly you're considered around this building as one of the brighter minds in Parliament. But with the hindsight of time, do you not feel that you may have prejudged the statement the mayor of Laval might have made or the evidence that the authorities, whether that is the Quebec police or the Quebec election authorities, might have been able to garner?
It could have been that, when confronted, the mayor of Laval may have admitted to trying to make the payment. It could have been that the authorities may have had other corroborating evidence that would support your story. I agree with you 100% that if the evidence was “you said he did this and he said he didn't do it”, then the investigation was going to go absolutely nowhere. It would be dropped immediately. But in hindsight, do you not think you may have prejudged both the evidence that would have come from the mayor or the ability of whatever authorities were appropriate in the circumstances to corroborate your evidence, and the matter would have been taken to another level?