Federal Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is facing criticism from refugee advocacy organizations after appearing unfamiliar with a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling that established constitutional protections for asylum seekers.
During an interview with Radio-Canada, Diab was repeatedly questioned about the 1985 Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration decision, which affirmed that refugee claimants are entitled to fundamental justice under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The ruling helped establish the foundation of Canada’s modern refugee protection system and contributed to the creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in 1989.
The controversy comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government faces legal challenges over Bill C-12, immigration legislation passed in March that introduced restrictions on access to refugee hearings.
Under the legislation, individuals who submit asylum claims more than one year after first entering Canada are no longer automatically referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Instead, they undergo a pre-removal risk assessment conducted by an immigration officer.
The assessment determines whether individuals face risks such as torture or death if returned to their home countries. Unlike conventional refugee hearings, the process generally relies on written submissions rather than oral testimony.
During the July interview, conducted for Radio-Canada’s documentary podcast Les murs: le périple des migrants vers le Canada, Diab maintained that Bill C-12 complies with the Charter and is intended to address the growing backlog of asylum applications.
However, when questioned about whether the legislation conflicts with the Singh ruling, the minister appeared unable to identify the decision.
After being asked directly whether she knew the case, Diab requested clarification and indicated that she would consult her staff. She also remarked that numerous legal decisions involved individuals named Singh.
Refugee advocates expressed concern over the exchange.
Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, described the minister’s apparent unfamiliarity with the ruling as deeply troubling, given its significance to Canada’s refugee protection framework.
François Crépeau, professor emeritus of public international law at McGill University and former United Nations special rapporteur on migrant rights, explained that the Singh decision established important procedural protections for refugee claimants, including oral hearings where credibility is at issue.
Crépeau argued that restricting access to full refugee hearings under Bill C-12 conflicts with the principles established by the Supreme Court.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada disputes that interpretation.
During parliamentary hearings in February, a departmental lawyer maintained that the Singh decision requires oral hearings when credibility is in question but does not establish an unconditional right to an oral hearing in every refugee case.
The government continues to maintain that Bill C-12 complies with constitutional requirements, while lawyers challenging the legislation argue that it violates Canada’s domestic and international legal obligations.
Following the Radio-Canada interview, Diab’s office insisted that the minister was familiar with the ruling but had misunderstood the questions because the interview was conducted in French, which is not her first language.
However, CBC reported that Diab also deferred questions about the Singh decision to departmental officials during two separate English-language Senate committee appearances examining Bill C-12.
Louis-Philippe Jannard, representing a Quebec association of more than 160 organizations supporting refugees and immigrants, questioned why the minister appeared unfamiliar with a ruling repeatedly discussed during the legislation’s parliamentary review.
The controversy has intensified existing scrutiny of Diab’s handling of the immigration portfolio. Advocacy organizations have previously raised concerns about her accessibility, while opposition Conservatives have called for her dismissal.
Despite the criticism, Prime Minister Mark Carney reaffirmed his support for the minister on Wednesday, October 7, stating that she would remain in her position.
The Prime Minister’s Office has also defended Diab’s role in implementing the government’s immigration agenda, which includes reducing immigration to sustainable levels while continuing to attract skilled workers.
Meanwhile, the constitutional challenge to Bill C-12 remains before the courts, with its implications for refugee claimants and access to hearings continuing to generate debate among legal experts and advocacy organizations.
