We were actually studying... It wasn't a study on Ms. Dhalla; it was a study on foreign workers. In particular, we heard evidence from a number of individuals, two nannies, different temporary foreign worker groups.
We came to a report that the entire committee... I'll have to go back to check this. I believe it was a unanimous report, but I'll have to go back and check. It was not specific to Ms. Dhalla.
Actually, I just happened to be reviewing the testimony from the committee the other day—I was rewatching it on YouTube—and there were a number of important things that we spoke of. Ms. Dhalla's testimony was only a small portion of the work that was done by the committee. I know she asked that we accommodate her, so that we could...
No, it's quite true. We moved around the schedule of the immigration committee so that she could appear before us.
So I have to ask Ms. Mendes, through you, Chair, to go back and reflect on the good work that the immigration committee did. Don't try to compare this particular motion of Mr. Comartin with any of the extraordinary work that the immigration committee did. She was part of that committee; she was part of the report. I don't recall how she voted. It was predominantly a report on how we change and make things better for temporary foreign workers, for nannies. It was a really good report.
You say it wasn't unanimous; I think it was. But I think it's completely wrong to be trying to bring the two in and bring in Ms. Dhalla as an example of partisanship in a committee.
I think what Mr. Dechert and Mr. Petit have said makes a heck of a lot more sense than what I'm hearing so far on the opposite side.