Reply to Rejoinder

Reply to Rejoinder

By Julius A. Tiangson

A friend of mine requested me to “Can you clarify this article please of Joe Rivera?” This is in reference to a blog written by Mr. Rivera at http://anuncomplicatedmind.blogspot.com/?spref=gb. What do friends do when asked for a personal opinion? I gave my personal take on the article. Unfortunately, my personal and private response was forwarded to Mr. Rivera without my implied or written permission.

Now, I have to respond in full to both the blog and Mr. Rivera’s response to my initial take on his blog.

On matters regarding the Regulatory Changes to the Live-in Caregiver Program…

I am neither a lawyer nor a legislator. I claim no expertise or full comprehension of the law governing Canadian Immigration. My expertise is in the field of business, Non-profit organizations, charity, community development, social enterprise, Theology and personal advocacy within the context of social justice and righteousness.

It is in the context of social justice and righteousness arising from the framework of a Biblical Worldview that I have advocated for changes in the Live-in Caregiver Program. At the height of the campaign to reform the Live-in Caregiver Program, my primary concern was not entirely focused on the nuances of how the regulatory changes would be framed. I leave that to experts. Quite often, I defer to them if there are nuances in the new regulations that needed further clarity. My primary concerns were the safety of the LCP participants and employment fairness that needed to be urgently addressed.

The Ruby Dhalla Nannygate has given the LCP community a golden opportunity to push for changes to the program. Such golden opportunity was lost during the 13 year rule of THREE CONSECUTIVE MAJORITY LIBERAL GOVERNMENT when they elected the first Filipino Member of Parliament, Hon. Rey Pagtakhan of Winnipeg. I lived in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan when Mr. Pagtakhan was first elected as Member of Parliament. Many community advocates in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan had seen this as a golden opportunity to truly push for change to the program. But to our disappointment, Mr. Pagtakhan took on Government, even Cabinet responsibilities, that have nothing to do with the issues we asked him to advocate. The THREE CONSECUTIVE LIBERAL GOVERNMENTS in the 1990’s would have been able to change the legislation governing the LCP, including what Mr. Rivera has been advocating in his blog without any effective opposition. If I recall, the Progressive Conservative was reduced to two seats, the official opposition was the separatist Bloc Quebecois or the Reform party. The LIBERALS COULD HAVE INTRODUCED SWEEPING CHANGE to the LCP without any opposition at all! But they DIDN’T! Perhaps, Liberal Filipinos blindly follow Liberal propaganda of being the champions of immigrants and immigration issues!

I wonder if Mr. Rivera has written a blog or to any media outlet in the 1990’s to address the inaction of the THREE CONSECUTIVE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT to the LCP issues with similar vitriolic disdain for the current Conservative Immigration Minister? Thus, I find it quite amusing and mildly entertaining that all of the sudden Mr. Rivera would take a personal interest in the LCP issues. I also wonder if Filipino Liberals have called into account the Liberal Government of the then Prime Minister Chretien and MP Pagtakhan with equal fervor since their affiliation would have given them access to power and policy makers?

As far as I can remember, since I lived in this country for over 26 years already, the only government in the 1980’s and the 1990’s who responded to the advocacy of the LCP by the likes of Ms. Coco Diaz and others in her time, was the Majority Conservative Governments of the then Prime Minister Mulroney who granted the right of permanent residence to LCP participants. The LCP framework prior to the Conservative Government of PM Mulroney was during the time of the Liberal Majority Governments of Prime Minister Trudeau. Much of what is WRONG with our current immigration and refugee laws and policies could be traced to policies and legislations under successive regimes of the Liberals under the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau. And they could have changed it under THREE SUCCESSIVE MAJORITY GOVERNMENT OF PM CHRETIEN WITHOUT ANY OPPOSITION! But like a master illusionist, the Liberal propaganda machinery painted themselves as champions of immigrant causes and issues.

On matters regarding political engagement…

I make no apologies for my preference of the Conservative Party. Their record for issues that matter to me speaks for itself.

Mr. Rivera, further wrote in response to my personal and private email forwarded to him:

“I will not address the other issues raised by Tiangson. I am neither a politician nor a supporter of major Canadian political party. Suffice it to say, however, that Tiangson appears to be a rabid supporter of Mr. Kenney and the Conservative Party. Tiangson is a leader of a coalition organized to help boot out Ms. Ruby Dhalla from Parliament in the coming federal election, which is a waste of time. Instead of helping a Filipino candidate get elected, Tiangson and others are campaigning in Brampton in support of Ms. Dhalla’s Conservative Party opponent. Why can’t we spend our collective effort and time to develop and support Filipino candidates, instead?”

How is he proposing this? Instead of applauding a Filipino initiative to remove a sitting Member of Parliament through a democratic process, Mr. Rivera says that this is a waste of time. Tell that to the Caregivers who brought forward the alleged abuses of Ruby Dhalla’s family? Tell that to the thousands of Caregivers who empathize with the victims of the alleged abuses of Ruby Dhalla’s family? Tell that to the thousands of Caregivers who have no voice in this election as they are neither permanent resident nor citizens who could vote out their elected Member of Parliament like Ruby Dhalla?

Further, how is Mr. Rivera proposing active citizenship when he hides behind “I am neither a politician nor a supporter of major Canadian political party.” He falls into the same category of people who claims neutrality as though it is the highest expression of political virtue and nobility. Our Canadian democratic processes and institutions in the Federal and Provincial Governments require that you belong to a political party. Through a political party, you align yourself with whichever is closes to your personal values and vision of our country. In a vibrant democracy, there is no room for neutrality. If he is really serious about political engagement then buy a membership in a political party and campaign for its platform come election time. To hide behind neutrality in an attempt to portray independence is cowardice, thus conceding one’s opinion to the dust bin of irrelevance!