News

With many in Ottawa turning their eyes to a defiant Brian Mulroney as he makes another effort to explain his dealings with Airbus lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber, The Globe's Margaret Wente says in her Tuesday column:

"Oh, never mind. No one cares about that old story any more. Give us sex appeal and intrigue. Throw in a hint of class oppression, flesh and (this being Canada) a multicultural angle. We want Ruby!

"Ruby Dhalla (or 'Dr. Ruby Dhalla,' as she styles herself) is young, beautiful and Sikh. She'd be a catch for any political party. She's a hard charger who loves the spotlight. When her lawyer told her to shut up at her press conference the other day, she could scarcely restrain herself.

"'There are so many powerful people who might have an interest in damaging my client's career,' he said on her behalf. He wouldn't say who they might be. But the implication was that three former foreign workers in the Dhalla household had been encouraged by her enemies to rat her out.
And oh, what ratting. 'I had to polish their shoes … for Miss Ruby and her brother,' said one, conjuring up images of Miss Scarlett and the Old South. 'Her mother had me shovelling snow at midnight,' said another. 'She wanted a slave, not a caregiver.'

And with the nannies and the Liberal MP set to appear before a House committee , Ms. Wente concludes: "Nothing can sink a woman's political career faster than suspicion she's abused the live-in help. It's as bad as a man who gets caught having sex with boys or hookers. Not that certain people even in her own party would be sorry to see Dr. Dhalla go down. She's known as someone who'd rather hog the limelight than do the parliamentary scutwork. Some people thought she'd got just a bit ahead of herself when she wondered aloud about running for party leader last fall. (She's 35, and can't speak French.)

"Even Michael Ignatieff is distancing himself from this one. Her lawyer said that 'she is receiving unending messages of support from the Liberal party,' but I'm not so sure.

"Poor Ruby. She's got enemies all over.

With all that in mind, we welcome Ms. Wente online Tuesday to take your questions on Ms. Dhalla, the nanny-abuse allegations she faces and how the scandal is playing out in the press. Your question and her answers appear at the bottom of this page.

One of Canada's leading columnists, Ms. Wente provokes heated debate with her views on health care, education, and social issues and has won the National Newspaper Award for column-writing.

Ms. Wente has had a diverse career in Canadian journalism as both a writer and an editor. She has edited two leading business magazines, Canadian Business and ROB Magazine. She has also been editor of the Globe's business section, the ROB, and managing editor of the paper. Her columns have appeared in the Globe since 1992. For the past two years she has been writing full-time for the paper, and she is a frequent commentator on television and radio.

Ms. Wente was born in Chicago and moved to Toronto with her family when she was in her teens. She holds a BA from the University of Michigan, and an MA in English from the University of Toronto.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Stephen Wicary, globeandmail.com: Margaret, thanks for joining us today to engage with our readers. Ms Dhalla has just appeared before the House of Commons immigration committee. Did you catch her testimony?  How do you think she performed?

Margaret Wente: I heard a bit of it on the radio.  She sounded very stiff and scripted.  Obviously she was well coached by her lawyer.  She's following the same story line he laid out last week: She didn't hire these people, didn't  supervise them, and was always kind to everyone.  So it's a matter of who you believe -- the caregivers, or her. 

G. Gillespie writes: Could you please explain why this issue merits public attention and an enquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons?  I could understand if Dhalla was a Cabinet minister or someone of some authority, but failing that, is this not a private matter to be resolved between the family and the caregivers, if not directly than through the courts?

Magaret Wente: I agree. This issue has been blown out of proportion by a newspaper (the Toronto Star), which had a good but minor investigative story, and by a feeding frenzy of partisan, publicity-seeking politicians. The idea that this is the business of a parliamentary committee is downright absurd. We have mechanisms in place to resolve issues like this. 

A. S. from New York writes: Abuse of an employee is a serious matter, but I wonder why no one has scrutinized her performance as an MP for so many years?  Shouldn't we be at least as concerned about her knowledge of politics and issues and vision for the country? Tabloid journalism, but not analysis and research, it seems, sells better.

Margaret Wente: Well, you're certainly right about the tabloid journalism. Imagine if  some lower profile, less flamboyant, less photogenic MP were in the same situation. Nobody would have cared. 

Ms. Dalla is a hardworking, enthusiastic MP who's neither more nor less informed than many others. She's not very experienced - she's only been in office for five years, but she's high profile partly because she's a very attractive ethnic woman. The Tories, who are trying hard to make inroads in ethnic communities, tried to woo her to cross over in 2006.

Lester M from writes: It appears her defence will be that her brother hired the nannies and her mother managed the day-to-day affairs in the household, so she bears no responsibility for whatever happened. Assuming she is callous enough to throw the entire mess, and legal responsibilities, onto the shoulders of other family members, do you think the public is gullible enough to accept this defence?

Margaret Wente: Hello Lester; you're right. It looks to me as if she's going hang her brother out to dry, and the testimony against the mother is pretty damaging. I think she made a mistake by hiring a lawyer (whose specialty is workplace law). She should have hired a communications specialist. Her best course of action is probably to fess up and acknowledge that mistakes were made even though she didn't know about them -- after all, she spends most of her time in Ottawa, not the family home -- and that she and her entire family are  very sorry and will do everything within theer power to resolve the situation quickly. As it is, she's on the defensive and I don't know how she's going to win in the court of public opinion. 

Paul V.C. writes: Ms. Dhalla is facing hot water again. She faced similar intimations of class oppression some time ago in India, if I recall. Is this incident to be construed as a slap in the face to multiculturalism?

Margaret Wente: Paul, I agree, this issue will just contribute to the sense that her judgment isn't good enough to move her ahead in politics. Last year she was in India, as people may recall, where her aide's purse was snatched by a couple of street kids who were then beaten up by the police. She made some insensitive remarks (before she learned that they'd been beaten up) that made her look callous.
 
I don't think this is in any way a slap to multiculturalism. It's a slap to someone in a fishbowl who's caught in our silly gotcha-game of politics.

J. Kenneth Yurchuk writes: I've heard many rumours about dislike for Ms. Dhalla from within the Liberal Party. One source specifically named Judy Sgro (who had problems of her own) as one. This story actually broke in the Toronto Star, the house rag for the LPC, and in the Ontario Legislature before an Ontario Liberal-led committee. Do these and other things lead you to believe that the 'plot' against Ms. Dhalla is real, and the knives are in her back, not front, or is Ms. Dhalla being somewhat paranoid?

Margaret Wente: Hi Kenneth. For what it's worth, Judy Sgro has been a big supporter of Ruby Dhalla during all this, while none of the other female Liberal MPs, as I recall, have said anything so far in her defence.
 
I'm not much of a believer in plots.  It simply may be that the caregivers, having learned that she's a public figure, have been encouraged to take advantage of this fact to get redress.  The same thing happened with the amateurish Bollywood film - the producer has been using her name in an attempt to attract publicity for it. So I think she can feel, with some justification, that she's being used. 

Also, the Star wouldn't have pursued the story (which someone, possibly an advocate for foreign workers' rights leaked to them) if Dhalla hadn't been relatively high profile. 

Robin M writes: Seeing the negative publicity given to Ms. Dhalla and her alleged mis-treatment of the two nannies, one of the questions not raised is this: Because they are in Canada under a federal program and not 'Immigrants,' wouldn't it be within Ms. Dhalla's right as their employer to ask for their passports, deeming that they could suddenly disappear one day, technically leaving her responsible?

On the other hand, if Ms. Dhalla did in fact threaten them when they wanted to leave because of what they felt was workload abuse, this poses a big problem for her and her political career.  Accused as she is of bullying these two women shows arrogance and does not sit well with Canadians, especially given her position of power in the federal Government of Canada. Do you agree?

Margaret Wente: Robin, I'm no expert on the law, but my impression is that withholding workers' passports or work papers is definitely a no-no. It means the worker is basically trapped till she gets them back, and it's a common way to exploit people. 

The sting of this story is exactly as you say -- if true, it's an example of oppression of the poor and powerless by the rich and powerful. We don't like that here. 

KT Ocean writes: Jason Kenney has said the women will not face any charges if they admit to working illegally. He referred to it as whistle blowing, but it sounds more like plea bargain, as usually whistleblowers have not done anything illegal. Our law is quite clear that both sides are held responsible and the employee faces deportation. Do you think Mr. Kenney can draw some distinction here, to distinguish this case from other cases of illegal workers? Otherwise it would seem that he is rewriting the law.

Margaret Wente: Hello KT, I think you may have put your finger on something here.  don't know the facts of the situation, but it's not uncommon for people to gain entrance to Canada with a specific work permit, then go on to do other (illegal) types of work. An immigrant worker who's been violating her work terms might see some gain in blowing the whistle.

Mr. Kenney, the immigration minister, isn't exactly impartial in this case. He's playing partisan politics as much as anyone.  The proper thing to do is leave the matter to be sorted out by the authorities whose job is to do exactly that.   

R. M. from Regina writes: Ms. Wente, as an ordinary citizen I am concerned about these quasi-judicial/inquiry bodies like Parliamentary committees that can subpoena witnesses, and so forth. I am also concerned with the speed in which they are established when the wheels of parliament normally turn very very slowly. I see them as complicating (see Mulroney/Schreiber, the taser inquiry) and muddying the waters so that the facts are never really known.

To me these matters should be investigated by the police, and if appropriate charges laid and then heard in a court of law rather than in committees, inquiries, commissions, etc. What do you think? Do these committees serve any real useful purpose in such complicated and serious matters?

Margaret Wente: R.M., I couldn't agree with you more. Allowing a parliamentary committee (which is headed by a partisan Conservative) to horn in on just guarantees some political grandstanding. The same was true with the Schreiber/Mulroney case. The parliamentary committee just muddied the waters. MPs are not lawyers or judges or adjudicators and should leave these things to the professionals. 

Royal commissions and commissions of inquiry are a different matter. They tend to be constituted with the proper expertise in place and more attention to due procedure.

Warren Shiau writes: This isn't a comment specifically targeted at Ms. Dallas, it's more at the media and the political parties. Why oh why is someone a 'catch' or a 'rising star' or a 'star in the making,' etc. etc., just because they're 'young, beautiful, and from a minority'? Especially, when the person isn't willing to do the actual work?

We've had several young MPs act as if getting elected was the end of the job - and the rest is all entitlement. Instead of criticizing them or reading them the riot act, they get star treatment because they cater to a demographic or to an ethnic background? How would Abraham Lincoln do today? How about identifying people as stars based on content and ability?

Margaret Wente: Ah, Warren, if only the world worked that way! Fortunately, I've met plenty of MPs with high intelligence, dedication to their country, and a great work ethic.  Unfortunately if they're on the back bench they tend to get terrifically frustrated with the limitations of the role. Other MPs are hacks who hang on for years because they know this is the best job they'll ever have.  And poltical parties will always seek out people who represent specific constituent groups -- whether geographic, ethnic, or whatever. That's true everywhere in the world, I'm afraid.

J. Seto from Iqaluit writes: It would appear that the image that many Canadians are getting in this David-vs-Glamorous Goliath battle is that Ruby is a egotist with a mean streak - a political 'Joan Crawford with the hanger.' What would a communications specialist recommend to her to recover from that unfortunate label?

Margaret Wente: J. Seto, I''m afarid you're right. She needs a crisis manager! I'd be surprised if all the caregivers were making all this up. Therefore, she's vulnerable. As I said earlier, she should probably say she wasn't aware of their complaints and is terribly sorry to hear about all of this and wants to apologize on behalf of her entire family. Then she should become an outspoken advocate for the rights of foreign workers.

She needs to try to reposition herself as doing good for other people, instead of just herself.  That, however, will be tough. 

B MacNeil writes: Mr. Ignatieff should throw her under the first passing bus. Why not expeditiously dissociate himself and the Liberal Party from this woman?

Margaret Wente: Mr. Ignatieff has been cool to frosty on this already.  I doubt he'll restore her shadow cabinet post any time soon. He will throw her under a bus, but very subtly.

Brent Bowes from Mississauga writes: In reflecting on this situation, the media attention surrounding it has accomplished some positiives. First, it has highlighted a systemic problem that many women from developing nations face here in Canada while trying to improve their lives. That is that they are continuously being taken advantage of by employers who feel they are entitled to do so by virtue of their different backgrounds. Second, it will undoubtadly encourage our legislators to strenghten the laws and support systems for these disadvantaged workers.

On the other side of the coin, an MP, a respected public servant, who has devoted herself to trying to improve the lives of her constituents, has been caught up in a 'he said - she said' no-win scenario. Unless a law has been proven to be broken by said MP, I suggest the media has been overly agressive in its approach to this story and the publication of unsubstantiated allegations. My question: Do you feel the media has reached too far in its reporting of these unsubstantiated allegations without providing either a more balanced approach to its reporting or alternatively holding back on its reporting until more facutal information was available?

Margaret Wente: Brent, I agree with you on both counts. I bet we'll see a bunch of features in the media over the next few weeks that examine the situation of immigrant women here. As for Ms Dhalla, Bob Rae has called this a "feeding frenzy," and he's right.

As for the media, it's useless to call for restraint. Once the ball gets rolling (it started with a huge headline in the Star), the other media are more or less obliged to chase it. That's the nature of our media culture, for better or for worse.

On the other hand, as one of my colleagues points out, if this were the United States the story would not rate a line in the New York Times.

Joseph Lawson from Toronto writes: Ms. Dhalla and her lawyer, Howard Levitt, have alluded to a conspiracy by Ms. Dhalla's detractors, to destroy her career. The only direct reference to any individuals or groups pointing a finger at her appear to be to one organization that looks out for the interests of low-paid immigrant workers. I would like to know if Ms. Dhalla or Mr. Levitt have any specific evidence that would connect the complainants' allegations with any interest group, lobby group, political operative or major political party. Or are they just blowing smoke?

Margaret Wente: Joseph, I have no idea if they're blowing smoke or not.  But I think that Ruby (and her lawyer)  have hurt her cause by alleging a conspiracy against her. Just makes her sound paranoid and evasive.   

Marcus T from Toronto writes: Ms. Wente, I do not envy you for having to do this job for the Globe and Mail. You call Dhalla 'Dr.' - cid she obtain a MD or PhD degree from an university somewhere, or is she just a chiropractor?

You said she is beautiful. Perhaps it is only in the eyes of the beholder! Any politician with any intelligence at all would not have got oneself involved in an unimaginable situation that Ms. Dhalla is now in. I did not know anything about her until she appeared in a press conference with her lawyer a few days ago. Her behavior and her manner of speaking was just awful, and her lawyer did not help either. Apparently she is well-known in the House of Commons as someone who loves the lime light and avoids all the hard work. Do you really think someone like her should hold public office?

Since she has handled this event so miserably, don't you think she has already lost all public confidence?

Margaret Wente: Marcus, she's a chiropractor. I had a line explaining that in my column but unfortunately it was cut for space. 

Ms. Dhalla is no dummy. But it's fair to say she lacks judgment. And after today, I can't see how she can regain all the ground she's lost. This thing is going to stick, and it will be real ammunition in the next election campaign (if she's allowed to run again). 

Singh Sodhi from Brampton writes: Hi Margaret, in light of the several recent controversies involving this MP, who by the way seems all about showoff and no substance, what do you think her political career holds for her!?

Margaret Wente: I think she might want to reconsider that Bollywood career. 

Stephen Wicary, globeandmail.com: Margaret, we're unfortunately out time.  Many thanks to you for joining us today and to all our readers for writing in.