Angry in the Great White North

Michael Ignatieff has made a difficult situation even worse for Ruby Dhalla, the Liberal MP facing allegations that she mistreated three different live-in caregivers.

At the heart of Ruby Dhalla's defence is the assertion that she did not employ or supervise these live-in caregivers.

So why did Michael Ignatieff say that Ruby Dhalla did indeed employ these women?

Taking reporters' questions for the first time on the Dhalla controversy, Ignatieff said yesterday: "I think Ruby made a vigorous defence of her integrity, her honour and her treatment of these - the people in her employ."

I've added the emphasis.

Now this could just be a slip of the tongue, but if it is, it is significant, because it shows how everyone really does believe, at some level, that Ruby Dhalla must have known what was going on in the Dhalla household and that she has to take on some of the responsibility for any mistreatment that might have happened as the de facto boss.  At the very least, that she has to answer the allegations with something more substantive than an evasive assertion that she wasn't formally the boss.

But we also know that Michael Ignatieff and Ruby Dhalla have discussed the scandal.  Is Michael Ignatieff's understanding of the relationship between Ruby Dhalla and the caregivers different from what we are told it was?  Is that understanding based on something Ruby Dhalla told him, but has not revealed publicly?

For crying out loud, Jason Kenney has taken more care with what he says to avoid undermining Ruby Dhalla's defence.

I think Michael Ignatieff needs to clear the air on this one (and then maybe just stop talking since Michael Ignatieff doesn't add anything of value to this discussion).  I'll wait patiently for someone in the media to call him out on this one.

[Thanks to sharp-eyed reader David for this one.]