I have been having problems since I got my Mac because my video capture program only works on Windows. I think I have solved the problem tonight, so here is my take on.....
The nannies versus I Ruby!
As a female, I am ashamed of I Ruby. She is blaming everyone except herself. I understand that Liberals think only about themselves, and that is what I Ruby is doing, but she is making it way worse than it should have been. She is not believable and the nannies are, so the hole is just going to get bigger for I Ruby. She has thrown her brother and the nannies under the bus and the Liberals are now trying to make it some sort of Conservative conspiracy?
Get real! There are Liberal fingerprints all over this issue. Just come clean I Ruby, you can not win this fight unless you do. This is not going to disappear. We already understand that Liberals are entitled to their entitlements, so we are not too shocked.
What is bothering me is the way these poor nannies have been treated, not only by the Dhalla family, but by our country. I hope the committee changes how this program works. It has it's good points, and I would have loved to have a Philippine nanny, but I do not understand how the Dhalla's qualified for the program. I Ruby was using her position as an MP to get some "perks" of the job and it backfired.
Own up and move on I Ruby.
UPDATE: Seems like I Ruby is in deeper trouble.
13 comments:
If Mrs. Dhalla is, indeed, not in need of care (and the transcript of the phone interview with Ruby implies this), then the nannies could have been fraudulently hired. If Mrs. Dhalla can travel with Ruby, then she must be in good health - somebody who needs home care usually has some impairment and I would think that such a person could not travel well.
An employer is not permitted to take an employee's passport so I don't know why the nannies passports were taken from them.
Ruby's testimony sounds very legalistic and manufactured and this makes me suspicious. I will state categorically that she is not the only employer to have ever abused a vulnerable immigrant but the fact remains that she is a public figure and an MP. Nobody forced her to be an MP so this is her choice.
Anybody who is in the public eye must be utterly scrupulous and ensure that they are not associated with anything which could produce bad optics. Furthermore, it is incumbent on a public person to go the extra mile to keep him or herself squeaky clean. Clearly, she has not done this.
She could be perfectly innocent - I can't say one way or the other - but her family appears to have hired these ladies illegally and fraudulently. I say APPEARS because I have only the media on which to rely. And, certainly, Dhalla does not come across as being forthcoming so I have to ask myself: Is she hiding something? And, if so, what is she hiding.
The fact that she is a woman, Sikh, or even attractive has nothing to do with the issue. She is a public - very public - figure and she has failed to keep her house in order.
If there has been some wrongdoing, then a sincere and not-legalistic apology is required.
If she is, indeed, a victim as she says, then she is a victim of her family and not the CPC, the media, or even from within the LPC. Her family, and POSSIBLY herself are the peretrators of this issue.
Pete Fonseca further exacerbated this issue by sitting on it until Ignatieff was crowned leader. Was it deliberate? Who really knows. But the fact remains that he sat on it and abdicated his duties as labour minister by handing out a 1-800 number which was not functional AND sitting on the issue. The optics are very bad and, if it were my party which did this, I'd be the first one to condemn its actions.
As for Jason Kenney - as Immigration Minister, it is his right to intervene in individual cases and, indeed, it is incumbent upon him to do the opposite of what Pete Fonseca did.
Instead of trying to shift blame to Kenney as the Libs are doing, I believe that Canadians should take heart that we have an Immigration Minister who gets off his butt and walks the walk.
Fonseca failed these vulnerable ladies in the worst way. For all the talk of protecting the vulnerable, the LPC is doing a very bad job of it.
And, note that Ignatieff is back up on his soap box re: EI. Yes, it sucks but it sucked back during the Trudeau days when I was laid off thanks to Trudeau's ruination of our economy and I had the worst time trying to collect even one payout. The LPC is just as responsible as the PC Party for making EI unworkable.
Re:" As for Jason Kenney - as Immigration Minister, it is his right to intervene in individual cases and, indeed, it is incumbent upon him to do the opposite of what Pete Fonseca did."
And is it right for Jason Kenney's staff to distribute three page pamphlets against Dhalla to committee members and for he, himself promise the moon to the complainants before the verity of their allegations have been established legally? You know, like in court?
On the EI issue - all it would take to make EI work for Canada's unemployed is the will of parliament. It's ridiculous for PMSH balk, saying he won't help because Iggy is trying to change Liberal policy. It's 2009 and we have a problem to solve so let's do it. Good grief. You'd think upping EI would eat into the Con attack ad budget or something.
Stereo - I would be happy to consider your comment and enter into a logical debate with you but your comment is nothing short of an anti-Harper rants. Sorry. I put forth what I figured was a rational, reasonable, and balanced comment and you chose to make it a target of your hatred of Harper.
IMHO, you have demonstrated a high level of intelligence and a depth of intellect but for some reason, your recent comments have become nothing but rants full of emotion, negativity and speaking points. I would really like it if you returned to your old self.
''And is it right for Jason Kenney's staff to distribute three page pamphlets against Dhalla to committee members''
Yes. Distributing fact sheets is exactly what is needed.
''It's ridiculous for PMSH balk''
Who in the H do you think is PM here?
Your loser and the other 76 Lib MPs are in opposition,
NOT GOVERNMENT.
Iffy had his chance to force EI reforms,
it's called a budget.
He asked for NOTHING in ammendments.
Now he threatens...
If Iffy wants to PM he needs to ask the Boss,
Canadians.
And another thing.
Iffy has been elected in
ONE RIDING.
One riding.
NO leadership election.
No mandate from Liberals.
NO general election with him as Lib leader, or leader of the official opposition.
No mandate from Canadians
No mandate from CanadiansNot until October 19, 2009
Putting things in perspective, the CPC is less annoying than the new blogger refusal to leave an italics area and go to a new line without something outside the italics. (see above comment)
Grrrr!
Re: "I put forth what I figured was a rational, reasonable, and balanced comment and you chose to make it a target of your hatred of Harper."
Yeah, your comment was pretty reasonable till you got to that bit which I quoted and quibbled with. So I quite legitimately quibbled with it. What's your comeback? I made your comment a target of my supposed "hatred" of Harper. Good grief that's retarded.
FTR, I don't hate ANYBODY. Hatred is not part of my ethos.
I do like reasoned arguments, in fact I come here every day hoping I might find one. But today is not Hunter's day (or yours if your comments can't withstand a couple of pointed questions).
The reasoned argument on the Dhalla fiasco is in the Globe - no link - go find.
Re wilson:"And another thing.
Iffy has been elected in
ONE RIDING.
One riding."
Yes, as is every MP including Stephen Harper. Your point?
Re wilson: "Who in the H do you think is PM here?
Your loser and the other 76 Lib MPs are in opposition,
NOT GOVERNMENT."
PMSH has barely had the confidence of the majority of the House since he took office. That is a very tenuous approach to governance - if I may be so bold to add.
Alternatively:
"Who in the H do you think is PM here?"
Umm the individual who authorized the imbecilic new campaign ads for the CPC.
The Sun had a funny heading on the article the day she was to appear, which was Tuesday.
"Hello, Ruby Tuesday"
IRuby better be careful what her lawyer says, re some mysterious man. If he hired one of these workers as nannies for his 4 kids that means they are not caregivers.
Will he come fwd, follow the money.
Someone will find him, and his kids will be questioned.
There application to come to Canada has to be somewhere, and the name of the original sponsor will also be there. He better be careful or some serious allegations could be claimed against him as to why she left.
Is MIMI wanting an election now to get the voters to get rid of IRuby,so he doesn't have to make a decision. And isn't there a provincial election coming up in PEI soon. And when do the by-elections have to be called.s
Does IRuby have anyone caring for her mother now.
Post a Comment