No.
I just want to correct here. I'm not representing them. In light of the fact that she mentioned that she spoke with somebody from our agency—it happened to be me, at the time—I am responding to this committee in relation to your inquiry about what happened.
I still have not broken confidentiality. I still have not given you details about the conversation with the caregiver. I still choose not to do so.
I just want to give you one tip, though. If I had chosen to do so, the story would have been a lot more detailed and probably hair-raising.
I want to say that I have no bias in this issue. As I stated, I have no motives. I didn't know who Ruby was at the time. If you're alluding to there being some bias on our part by supporting the caregiver and her story, as I said, I did not even hear what she said on Tuesday. I was not privy to the hearings. I am just being frank and honest in this.
It's a pity, though, that this has become a big political issue. I joked about it and said that in my 20 years in Canada, this is the first time the press has been so consistent about a political story. Usually we are interested in stories in the U.S. about their politicians.