Debater, I think you will find lots of discussion that has occured on the Mulroney/Schreiber affair here - and I don't think you would find much sympathy for Mulroney here. I know in my house growing up, his name was a dirty word.
However, this is a thread on a completely different topic, involving a completely different party. You would think there is only room for one unethical politician in parliament....I would submit that Dhalla and Mulroney are just the tip of the iceberg...
$3.71 an hour. That's what a Liberal MP pays other human beings to do skivvy work for her and her family.
And if the federal Liberals have it their way, YOU'LL be next!
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/632695] Caregivers scared but vow to testify [/url]:
Two foreign caregivers who have accused MP Ruby Dhalla and her family of mistreatment are concerned their testimony today at a parliamentary hearing will get them deported because they were working illegally at the Mississauga home.
"I am scared but I want to do the right thing. I am going to testify," said Magdalene Gordo, 31.
But a top aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said the women have nothing to fear.
"They don't need to worry about retaliation from the immigration department for being whistleblowers," said Alykhan Velshi, Kenney's director of communications. "Under no circumstances will they be deported from Canada, period."
Gordo and Richelyn Tongson, 37, are scheduled to testify via video link, but Dhalla will appear in person - for the sole purpose of stating she should not be there, says her lawyer, Howard Levitt.
"She's not the employer, she's not the sponsor (of the caregivers), she's not the person to whom care was given," Levitt said yesterday. "She's just the victim."
Embattled Ontario Labour Minister Peter Fonseca, who has been caught up in the scandal - he knew of their concerns but did nothing substantial to help - also offered to testify, saying he would speak only about a "severely broken" federal live-in caregiver system. However, Fonseca was told last night the committee could not accommodate him today and would have him back at a later date.
A third foreign worker, Lyle Alvarez, 32, who says she worked at the Dhalla home for only nine days in 2008, is now working in Western Canada and is not expected to testify at this time.
Meanwhile, the Star has confirmed through a senior source in the immigration department that none of the three Filipino women had the federal work permits required to work in a home.Earlier in the week, without naming Dhalla, Kenney told reporters in Ottawa that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, anyone who hires a foreign worker without the proper federal approval could be liable for penalties of $50,000 and two years in jail.
Ruby Dhalla is the victim. LOL
Will Michael Ignatieff ask her to resign as MP if this mess doesn't get cleared up?
Iggy will go with whatever the polls tell him. The guy has no personal principles.
Her lawyer is also saying that it was her brother and mother who handled everything - and it is they who should be questioned. She is effectively "throwing them under the bus".
Interestingly enough, Neil Dhalla appeared in a Liberal campaign ad in 2006.
He won't have to.
She's dead meat unless she can clear most of the accusations. [So far her lawyer is only saying what amounts to the claims being exxagerated. Even if thats true- not even close to good enough for her survival.]
It could get messy if she and even a few others think she has been vindicated [enough]. But first she has to get even that far.
At any rate, Iggy won't be doing the dirty work. If they think she has to go and needs pushing, that will be done behind the scenes and with 'off the record' [barely off] statements first, and only with on the record 'musings' about her problems if necessary.
My guess is they won't give her a lot of time. As well as wanting to get it out of the news, they'll want time to get a new candidate established. If she's pissed she could resign outright rather than simply saying she won't run again, and force them into the possibility of a by-election they dont want. Pondering that is getting ridiculously speculative at this point, but it wouldn't be a good way to get back at the Liberal party since as much as Harper might want a by-election there, he doesn't want one in New Westmisnster. And besides, saying you will not run again is the usual way of maintaining one's innocence.
But as weall as being speculative, how she would leave is quite secondary to whether she is going to have to, and all the implications of that either way this affair ends.
She isn't throwing them under the bus. The lawyer is just trying to deflect the Commons committee.
The brother and mother don't have public profiles to worry about. And if there are any legal consequences, they will or will not face those irregardless of all the public posturing going on now.
Just in terms of theatre, I'm waiting to see how the lawyer expects to pull off this deflection. I mean, the 3 workers are going to say what they will about Ruby Dhallas invlovement. And the inquisitors will draw dotted lines to her where the workers don't. So I don't know how its supposed to do any good to sit back on a formality that Ruby Dhalla did not have the full employer relation.
Maybe he has something else for this show. Or maybe all they have is to establish that the Commons commitee is not going to prove anything. If that's it, its a pretty long shot for saving her reputation. But if its all they have, then thats what it will be.
Does anyone know if someone is liveblogging this today?
Does anyone know if someone is liveblogging this today?
I'm not sure, but remember today is also Brian Mulroney's first day of testimony at the Schreiber commission - with more than one political corruption investigation to report on, it's hard to know which one is going to get the most attention.
Incidentally, there is also the election in B.C. today too.
Margaret Wente is blogging and taking questions Globe on-line- 12:00 to 1:00 EDT.
I vaguely remember it as all the testimony taking place this morning- so it would be over by then [soon]?
The BC election results wont start coming in till long after this has blown through tonights news cycle.
It will be sad if both this and the Mulroney circus don't take a back seat for at least tommorow. And if for no other reasons than all the reporters are lined up to comment on BC, that may be what we get.
I couldn't find any liveblogging, but cbc.ca has this story up:
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/12/dhalla-foreign-caregivers-comm... MP Dhalla was the one who hired us, foreign caregivers testify [/url]
Margaret Wente is blogging and taking questions Globe on-line- 12:00 to 1:00 EDT.
I vaguely remember it as all the testimony taking place this morning- so it would be over by then [soon]?
Yes, the Mulroney testimony has already begun and there are a few articles already online discussing what he has said so far:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090512/mulroney_te...
On Dhalla's tetimony:
Embattled Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla says she has "nothing to hide" and has "done nothing wrong"...
"I, like many others, are trying to wonder why these caregivers have come forward 15 months later, after leaving our home on what I thought was on good terms," Dhalla said, her voice shaking. "I don't know what their motive is, but I do want to tell all of you today that I have nothing to hide and I have done nothing wrong."
"Anyone that has ever entered our home has always been treated with love, with care, with compassion and respect," Dhalla said.
"As such, the allegations that have been brought forward against myself have come as a big shock and have been devastating to both myself and my family, friends and supporters."
So the workers give detailed accusations.
Dhalla gives nothing except a blanket denial. With one really pale exception:
On Tuesday, Dhalla repeated earlier denials that she hired the caregivers and said it was her brother, Neil, and mother who oversaw their work.
Dhalla produced flight boarding passes in an attempt to prove that she was not in Brampton for much of the time that the caregivers' worked for her family.
But Gordo said Neil Dhalla "was never involved in interviewing me, orienting me in the job responsibilities, nor supervising me. He never introduced himself as my employer. He did not discuss employment issues with me."
Gordo said her only contact with Neil Dhalla was when he showed her how to shine his shoes and care for his suits.
The boarding pass thing is a pathetic attempt at diversion that indicates how little Dhalla has to go on.
And for the "they come forward 15 months later" ploy, she knows there is documentation of their complaints back then. So this is nothing more than a deperate play to the supporters who are probably considerably less numerous than she thinks she has.
In the CBC story the workers said she was home every Thursday or Friday to Monday. Which is what every MP has to do even when the House sits- if they live in Whitehorse, let alone only have to go to Brampton. Producing a few selective boarding passes that show you left home obviously proves nothing for a weekly airline commuter. And thats the one thing she even tried to refute.
I think Dhalla was coming before the workers. She still could have brought all mammer of proof of the already well known allegations- if she had any.
And I'm betting she declines the invitation to return and speak directly to the worker's accusations.
I couldn't find any liveblogging, but cbc.ca has this story up: MP Dhalla was the one who hired us, foreign caregivers testify [/url]
Ther most important in that story for me was, if the Dhallias were so caring and loving, why were the women's work history with them so short?
Also the Dhallia's hired them illegally and Ms Dhallia lived in the house as an MP with illegally hired employees, are we supposed to be it was without her knowing, even though apparently she interviewed them and wnated the one's passport to get a work permit for her after the fact?
After reading those transcripts, its very clear how evasive Dhalla is. This is very unfortuneate. She sounds open and honest at first but as the reporter peels off the layers, she starts to stumble. The endgame is to deny deny deny, and it appears she is not telling the truth, and certainly not being open. Those questions should be home run hits, especially given the opportunity to answer them directly. She fails. She hides.
The Lawyers responses are typical roadblocks to the truth.
She has the power and money to win this. But I smell a rat.
She may have over played her hand, too. I don't think she enjoys (I could be wrong) immunity from libel from where she gave testimony, and she mentioned Kenny connecting him to a conspiracy to smear her.
I think I could have had Dhalla most of the way through this mess if I was doing her damage control, and probably for cheaper than Levitt is currently charging to prolong this issue.
But then, unlike Mulroney spokeslug Robin Sears, there's a thing or two I won't do for money.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/632641]Nannygate and the global economy[/url]
Why would anyone put up with working in a household (not to mention a chiropractic clinic and a cousin's apartment) without overtime, without the legal minimum wage, and without their passports, as the nannies allege?[/quote]
The media finally managed to corner Ignatieff for a brief scrum yesterday and the transcript is quite [url=http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/12/iggy-speaks/] amusing [/url]:
Michael Ignatieff: Good afternoon. Bonjour.
Question: Happy birthday.
Michael Ignatieff: Thank you. I'm glad somebody wished me happy birthday, yes.
Question: Happy birthday.
Michael Ignatieff: I'm 140 years old. Looks pretty good, no? Who's going to -
Question: Can we start with Ruby Dhalla? You haven't said much beyond your statement on Friday and I think people would like to know what you're thinking about all this, what you're seeing in caucus. Do you have any views on what you've heard so far?
Michael Ignatieff: I think Ruby made a vigorous defence of her integrity, her honour and her treatment of these - the people in her employ. She also said something else that's very important which is that she's concerned I think all Canadians should be that people who are temporary caregivers on these visas not be subject to abuse and mistreatment of any kind. So the morale (sic) I draw from this difficult story is that it's cast a needed light on a problem that Parliament and when we get into government we're going to need to look at to make absolutely sure that none of the good people who come to this country are ever subjected to abuse because of their immigration status. That seems to be the key issue. So - but she herself made that point and I was glad she did.Question: Who do you believe, the nannies or Ms. Dhalla?
Michael Ignatieff: My view is that Ms. Dhalla made a very clear defence of her position and she has - and what she said today is consistent with what she has told me.
Question: But that's not quite an answer to that question, sir. I mean you talked about a full and vigorous defence. You haven't quite offered her the same thing. Why is that?
Michael Ignatieff: I've given her a very strong defence of her position. But the facts of the matter are that a member of my caucus has been accused of a serious, serious issue. She's mounted a vigorous and convincing defence of the accusations and I take her at her word. But the point I'm trying to make here is that in this difficult story we must not lose sight of the fundamental issue of policy which is that people who come to this country on this visa status must never be abused. And it my belief that they were not abused in this case. But we want to make darn sure that we don't have unpleasant stories like this again.
Question: So you take her at her word but not the nannies? You can't have both.
Michael Ignatieff: Merci.
"To make darn sure we don't hear unpleasant stories like this again" kind of sounds a lot like "hopefully all of these low-class nannies will be scared off by Dhalla's legal team and think before complaining again".
The man is such a coward.
Isn't it wonderful to have a choice between two such upstanding men for PM?
I didn't agree with a lot of Iggy,s "human rights" rantings prior to gracing Canada with his presence again a few years ago, but you could at least have stuck to his principles. One could have at least have respected the courage of principle. I hope the Tamils don't expect him to keep his word.
Seems to me that Iggy Thumbscrews is trying to keep every door open. I suspect that Dhalla hasn't told a different story to him, or to Levitt than what she has told the public. A very bad strategy unless she is 100% innocent-- which clearly she is not-- these women were working illegally in her household, there is no go around on that. And, there seems to be a gathering weight of circumstantial evidence that the passports were withheld.
The nominally Canadian Iggy is trying to walk a tightrope over the chasm of two polarizing issues again. Problem is, there's no tightrope, no middle ground. Dhalla has made it either/or. He could err on Dhalla's side, which would undoubtedly piss off people like us who aren't going to vote for him anyways, but endear him to his caucus and traditional Liberal and soft Conservative supporters who would see him as a guy who "has your back".
But, he's not doing that. He's left himself an out in case Dhalla is lying, which even the casual observer can read. No one can really say-- no matter the outcome-- that he's the type of guy "who has your back."
Iggy is being too clever by half, and, like I said, even the casual observer can see that.
It does appear to be a lose/lose situation for Ruby Dhalla. The sobs of one of the women as she pleaded not to be sent home clearly pointed out how vulnerable she was and how little "love, care and compassion" she had received in the Dhalla home. This contrasted with Ruby Dhalla admitting to calling the agency but denying any responsibility for the fact that her family home was the residence of illegal aliens. She was less than convincing, particularly when she referred to herself and her family as victims.
I suspect that Iggy wishes she would simply go away, quietly.
I'm not sure yesterday's events changed anyone's mind regarding who they believe, and who they don't. Things like that, people see what they are predisposed to see.
Likely you are right.
But unless Dhalla starts to "win", she's going to be toast.
Merely avoiding the incontovertable 'proof' she is lying will not be good enough for her survival. If thats all she can do, then all she is going to get is delaying the unsheathing of knives within the Liberal party.
I have noticed that a number of reporters have been at least partially swayed against the workers credibility by the 'why didn't they bring this up a year ago' point. And I'm not talking just the usual suspects saying that.
The workers DID complain about it a year ago- to where they knew how and felt safe.
Dhalla was able to say that they didn't and that went unchallenged at the Committee because there was no mechanism for challenging her.
I never thought when it started that the Cons were going to get away with their adscam 2006 spending limit scam.
But this may be another case that when all the details are too complicated [which doesn't take much]......
Thing is, it's not complicated. There's no dispute over the facts that the workers were in Dhalla's house working illegally, and there's a corroborating witness to say the passport of one was taken away and witheld.
Iggy hasn't quite bought into Dhalla's story
Michael Ignatieff: I think Ruby made a vigorous defence of her integrity, her honour and her treatment of these - the people in her employ.
Dhalla's (weak) excuse is that the women were not in her employ.
Oops.
Iggy hasn't quite bought into Dhalla's story
Almost anyone else, you could read between the lines and actually surmise "he doesn't believe her."
But with Iggy Thumbscrews, his reflex is to always leave an exit strategy, a clear path for back pedeling. I'm not sure it necessarily means he doesn't believe Dhalla, or even if the truth of the matter enters into his considerations.
I noticed that too Scott! Lol. Ah, you have to love Iggy...so sure in what he stands for.
I heard Iggy yapping about that but I did not catch that loop hole.
There was also something else he was on about, in indignant splendor, on last nights news can't remember right now what it was.
I have noticed that a number of reporters have been at least partially swayed against the workers credibility by the 'why didn't they bring this up a year ago' point. And I'm not talking just the usual suspects saying that.
The workers DID complain about it a year ago- to where they knew how and felt safe.
Dhalla was able to say that they didn't and that went unchallenged at the Committee because there was no mechanism for challenging her.
That was yesterday.
Today, firm refutation of Dhalla's insinuation about the workers.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/634088
See if she continues to have as many reporters who say they beleive some of what Dhalla claims.
Press conferece at the office of Dhalla's lawyer, 5:00 Eastern.
I have my guess what he is going to say. Don't know if she'll be there. Won't be if the [brief] message is what I think.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/05/14/9457791-sun.html
Ruby Dhalla compared to Pinocchio
Agatha Mason, executive director of Toronto-based Intercede, said she had been contacted in May 2008 by Richelyn Tongson, who tearfully asked for her help in getting back personal documents she said the Dhallas were holding, such as a passport and marriage certificate. Mason said Tongson's story was "hair-raising."
Mason told the House of Commons citizenship and immigration committee that she called the Dhalla home in Brampton and spoke with Neil Dhalla, Ruby Dhalla's brother. She said he referred her to the MP's office in Ottawa. She then had a conversation with Ruby Dhalla, and "based on that phone call, the documents were returned the following day."
Mason characterized the phone call with Ruby Dhalla as "unpleasant" though she did not provide specific details.
Her version of events was diametrically opposed to what Dhalla has already told the committee. In testimony earlier this week, the Liberal MP said she was not the employer of the live-in caregiver and that a call to her office on the matter was referred to her brother Neil.
But Mason said she remembered her call to the Ottawa MP's office because Intercede has a small budget and hesitates to make long-distance calls. She produced a phone bill for May 29, 2008 to show the call had been made, and later told reporters it was also noted in her 2008 day diary.
Liberal MPs tried to run flak for Dhalla- questioning among other things that she would not have known Dhalla was an MP.
But the course of events is consistent with what the caregivers have said all along. They gave Mason the phone number of the Dhalla residence to call, which makes perfect sense. Mason calls there. He doesn't have anything to do with supervising the workers, and because its Thursday Ruby Dhalla is in Ottawa. So the brother referrs Mason to Dhallas obvious. Pretty straightforward.
Not only does Ms.Mason appear to have documentation backing her version, but Dhallas version is implausible: that Mason called her first in Ottawa and was referred by Ruby Dhalla to her brother. Last year this is not a big controversy, Mason is calling to put pressure on the employer. So she calls the place of employment the workers referred her to.
And Ms. Mason not knowing at the outset that Dhalla is an MP is perfectly plausible. Just the kind of fact that thoroughly frightened workers fearing deportation are going to leave out.
As I said before, people will look for this or that only to confirm the position they have already taken.
I think what is damning for Dhalla is Mason's matter of fact, haven't got an axe to grind, tone.
371 cents an hour over an average of 14 hour work days. That was the beginning of the end of Ruby Dhalla's political career.
LPC need to re-examine their vetting process to ensure they continue to attract only the most ruthless politicos. Apparently Ruby is overly loving and caring.
has she resigned yet?
Whose children were the live-in caregivers caring for? That should tell us who the employer is.
ETA: Should have read the link first, oops. Still, Neil obviously didn't require care and perhaps Ms. Dhalla's mother does but there are terms and conditions under which caregivers are hired.
Oddly enough, the program actually does not require that there be anyone in the household needing care.
Remind (I believe) has pointed out that Dhalla's mother is her designated travel companion with the Parliamentary Budget Office, meaning that she often accompanies her on trips to and from Ottawa and beyond. So, it's difficult to see what the caregivers were hired to do if not to shine Neil Dhalla's shoes and shovel the driveway.
My guess would be that Dhallas mother did not have to be in need of what we would call 'home care' for the family to qualify for the Live-In Caregiver program.
But unless I have missed something, every time it comes up, neither Dhalla or someone else on her behalf disputes that they had not yet qualified for the program.
Oh, I'm sure some intrepid Crown Attourney somewhere in Ontario is right on top of that.
Dhalla resigned yet?
And the news hinted at another thing Dhalla was going to come under fire for last night, but they did not say what it was, does anyone know what it is?
And why is it that so little attention is being paid to the fact that Dhalla, an MP, had people working for her illegally?
Dhalla's lawyer has trotted out another lawyer who says that his (nameless) client was the subject of complaints from Magdalene Gordo as well. He says that this "suggests a pattern". Of course, he's saying that in terms of one kind of pattern (a pattern of false complaints or, at the very least, chronic whining). I think that it's probably more likely that it points to another kind of pattern (a pattern of systematic abuse of caregivers by those involved in the program).
I really don't think that Dhalla's attempts to undermine the credibility of the complainants is going to work. She (and especially her lawyer) is just coming across as a bully... which is entirely consistent with how she has been portrayed by the complainants.
has she resigned yet?
Obviously not, or it would be all over the news. You seem quite keen for her to do so.
She's certainly not my favourite person either based on the way she has portrayed herself and I wouldn't mind if she resigned, but it's important not to reach any final conclusions until we get the rest of the information.
For example, in his piece on The National last night, Rex Murphy seemed to think she was receiving a bit of an unfair deal.
Yes I saw that news clip about complaint patterns scott, and thought the same myself.
Then of course Dhalla's lawyer pulled out pictures of where they were alleged to have stayed and how wonderful their "housing" was.
One of the things brought up last night was that apparently one of the nannies accusing Dhalla of mistreatment, is under allegations of mistreatment herself.
has she resigned yet?Obviously not, or it would be all over the news. You seem quite keen for her to do so.
She's certainly not my favourite person either based on the way she has portrayed herself and I wouldn't mind if she resigned, but it's important not to reach any final conclusions until we get the rest of the information.
For example, in his piece on The National last night, Rex Murphy seemed to think she was receiving a bit of an unfair deal.
I reached my final conclusion when it was exposed that those women were working in the house illegally, and upon hearing she had to be forced to return the 1 woman's passport. It is not acceptable for an MP, under any circumstances, to be conducting themselves suchly.
The rest of what information BTW?
LOL, Rex Murphy another person who I would never listen too, in order to form my opinions. Though it is interesting that he has now switched alligences to the Liberals from the CPC, I guess the fix is really in for them.
Dhalla's lawyer has trotted out another lawyer who says that his (nameless) client was the subject of complaints from Magdalene Gordo as well. He says that this "suggests a pattern". Of course, he's saying that in terms of one kind of pattern (a pattern of false complaints or, at the very least, chronic whining). I think that it's probably more likely that it points to another kind of pattern (a pattern of systematic abuse of caregivers by those involved in the program).
Precisely my thought, Scott. As why is this guy hiding behind his lawyer?
