Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Metlege Diab arrives for a meeting of the federal cabinet on Parliament Hill.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
Most Canadians don’t know much about the Singh decision. But if you’re the country’s Immigration Minister, you must.
So it was alarming that Lena Metlege Diab seemed confused when she was asked about the seminal 1985 Supreme Court decision in an interview for a Radio-Canada podcast.
It was the ruling that set the foundations of Canada’s asylum system, and is central to immigration policy. It established that asylum-seekers have Charter rights and a right to an oral hearing, led to the creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and is still an issue in reform efforts today.
But it didn’t ring bells for the minister.
“There are many Singhs and many decisions,” she said in a July interview for a podcast series that began airing recently.
The minister’s spokesperson, Taous Ait, chalked up the confusion to a language barrier in a French-language interview and said the minister thought she was being asked about a specific case and didn’t make the link to the landmark ruling. Just a blip.
But on the clip, one can hear the minister speaking passable French, repeating the 1985 date and that it was from the Supreme Court, as well as the interviewer explaining extensively that she was talking about the ruling. Still no bells rang.
Blip or not, there is reason to worry. Ms. Metlege Diab has had trouble following along before, and has had regular difficulty explaining immigration policy.
Tony Keller: Carney has started fixing immigration. He needs to keep at it
Right now, one of her key tasks is defending asylum-system changes in legislation passed in the spring, which are facing extensive court challenges on grounds related to the Singh decision. A few months ago, her department suddenly asked 100 people to surrender citizenship certificates and the minister said that was because “something” had happened, but she wasn’t sure what it was.
The Immigration Minister is adrift. And she’s not the only one.
The President of the Treasury Board, Shafqat Ali, doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing. He’s spent most of the past year and a half avoiding talking about his portfolio, and when he’s asked, he doesn’t seem to know much about it.
These are the two weakest links in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cabinet.
That’s not a secret. Even some Liberals roll their eyes at Ms. Metlege Diab’s performance. Mr. Ali is mostly kept away from microphones.
The President of the Treasury Board, Shafqat Ali, rises during Question Period in the House of Commons.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
Yet the Prime Minister hasn’t shuffled them.
The politics haven’t required it. Mr. Carney is way ahead in polls. A cabinet shuffle raises questions, and resentment from Liberal MPs who are not promoted.
But he still has weak links in portfolios that should be important.
Immigration is a hot-button issue. In Quebec, the newly elected Parti Québécois government puts it at the top of its beefs. Four of 10 questions in Alberta’s Oct. 19 referendum are about immigration. Ottawa is behind on its targets to reduce the numbers of temporary residents, and doesn’t have a clear immigration plan for the future.
The Treasury Board’s purview isn’t as controversial, but it is responsible for spending controls, regulations and reducing red tape – supposed priorities. Yet Mr. Ali has been the cabinet’s Invisible Man.
His announcements have usually come through written statements. In appearances at parliamentary committees, he tends to repeat rote talking points and refer substantive questions to his civil servants.
Richard Poplak: Canada is becoming an outpost of everyone’s empire
That’s why it was a surprise to see him hold a press conference Thursday on Parliament Hill, with three other cabinet ministers beside him, to talk about a bill to reduce red tape. He read a statement but didn’t seem all that familiar with the substance.
Although the bill was touted as unlocking Canada’ economic potential, Mr. Ali didn’t have a figure for a projected boost to the economy or explanation for why the projected $26-million-a-year savings for businesses are so small. He didn’t seem to know anything about the bill’s proposed changes to the process for making statutory regulations.
When a reporter asked about another issue in his portfolio – the costs incurred for civil servants returning to office – he launched into a boilerplate speech.
“I think, as we all know, that the time has changed and this is a time where the world is divided,” he started. He went on to laud the Prime Minister for his economic vision. He never got to addressing return-to-office costs.
He’s not the first minister to blather. What matters is that he and Ms. Metlege Diab have been unable to handle their portfolios.
And the Prime Minister still hasn’t stepped in to fix the weakest links.