Diab’s explanation of revoked 'lost Canadian' citizenships made it sound like no one, including her, knew what was going on
Overlooked in the monsoon of pre-summer news was a response from the prime minister at his press conference last week on the “lost Canadians” issue.
The question centred on the immigration minister, Lena Diab, who said she wasn’t sure why citizenship certificates were declared invalid by the Immigration Department, after being granted to people who had applied as the descendants of Canadians.
Recommended Videos
Carney was asked if those people deserved a timely explanation as to why they had been stripped of their citizenship.
“The simple answer is ‘yes,’ and I’ll be following up to ensure they get that. Thank you,” he said, offering a very good impression of a snapping turtle.
The reason for the prime minister’s displeasure became apparent after digging a little deeper.
Historically, Canadian citizenship by descent was limited to the first generation born or adopted outside Canada. But that limitation was struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.
Ottawa was obliged to pass a law that granted citizenship to second and subsequent generations born abroad, provided they could prove direct lineage to a Canadian “anchor” ancestor.
The Parliamentary Budget Office estimated that 115,000 people over five years could either reclaim or be granted citizenship, at a cost to the government of around $20 million.
When she appeared at committee on the subject, Diab said the department did not anticipate a surge in numbers.
Yet earlier this month, the department suspended and recalled a number of citizenship certificates issued under the new rules. People who had already obtained citizenship were ordered to return their certificates, pending a review of their files, and informed they may not be entitled to hold citizenship after all.
No reason was offered for the recall, beyond potential problems with the documentation not being from original source authorities.
This obvious bureaucratic snafu would challenge the most able of communicators.
Lena Diab is not one of those.
At a press conference last week, she said she was taking the issue “very, very seriously”.
“I have instructed the department — the second I found there was something, that I wasn’t sure what it was — to investigate.
“I can clearly tell you that at this point we are not finalizing any new applications, and all applications are being reviewed.”
The problem is, Diab is not clearly telling Canadians anything.
She was asked what led to the suspension of certificates for new citizens, some of whom had sold homes in the U.S. to move to Canada.
But answering that would have required the minister to stray from her talking points, and that is something that she will not, perhaps cannot, do.
“It is serious,” she reiterated.
It certainly is for the 4,100 successful applicants under this stream, whose futures were up in the air.
Good politicians calm anxieties by letting citizens know there is someone in charge and their concerns are being addressed. Diab’s explanation that the Immigration Department was investigating made it sound like no one, including the minister, knew what was going on. “Something” was, but by her own admission, Diab wasn’t sure what it was.
It took until Tuesday this week until the department clarified what the “something” was.
It said a routine review in early June had identified 100 citizenship certificates issued without sufficient supporting documentation.
That initiated another review to confirm whether the documentation was sufficient to entitle the applicant to citizenship by descent. The department said citizenship certificates were temporarily suspended while eligibility was verified.
“Out of an abundance of caution”, the review was then expanded to include the 6,500 applications that had been received to date. “This expanded review is now complete,” it said.
The problem is, Diab is not clearly telling Canadians anything
But of the 100 identified cases, only 33 citizenship certificates were reinstated immediately. The department said it is now taking “next steps” with the other 67 cases.
The blame for the whole affair was laid at the door of “unclear” guidance of what constituted acceptable documentation, which confused both officers and applicants, the department said in its statement.
It is unclear why the minister didn’t say much of this a lot sooner, even if it involved admitting that the process was badly designed and deeply flawed.
This, remember, is the same department that granted travel documents to Mehdi Taj, an Iranian soccer official who a quick Google search would have revealed had ties to the banned Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
It is the same department that was berated by the auditor general for its handling of the International Students Program, under which 33,660 ex-students were presumed to have left the country but may not have done.
It’s not so much that the Immigration Department seems to be in a state of semi-organized chaos. Diab inherited many of the problems, including the dramatic surge in temporary workers and foreign students that contributed to the housing crisis.
It’s more that she seems completely at sea when it comes to fixing things. Her parliamentary colleagues answer on her behalf in the House of Commons; her deputy minister assumed the same role when she appeared at committee.
As the prime minister weighs his options for the fall session, it would seem inevitable that Diab is demoted in any summer cabinet shuffle.
She seems to be a very nice person.
But she is like a one-legged man auditioning for the job of Tarzan, “a role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement.” In political terms, like Peter Cook’s aspiring Tarzan in a celebrated comedy sketch, Diab has one leg too few.
National Post
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.