Refugee rights advocates have expressed deep concern after federal Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab appeared unfamiliar with a landmark Supreme Court decision during a recent media interview. The 1985 Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration ruling is widely considered the cornerstone of Canada’s refugee protection system, establishing that asylum seekers are guaranteed Charter rights to fundamental justice and leading to the creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board. During an interview with Radio-Canada for a documentary podcast, Diab was repeatedly asked about the Singh case and Bill C-12, the Carney government’s immigration reforms that restrict eligibility for Refugee Board hearings. Under the new legislation, asylum claims filed more than a year after initial entry are handled through pre-removal risk assessments instead of full oral hearings. When asked point-blank about the Singh decision, Diab initially hesitated, asked for the name to be repeated, and remarked that there are many decisions before stating she would check with her team. Following the interview, Diab’s office insisted the minister was aware of the ruling but experienced a language barrier during the French-language interview. However, critics noted she also avoided similar questions during English-language appearances before Senate committees. François Crépeau, a professor emeritus of public international law at McGill University, stated that removing full hearings violates the conditions set by the Singh decision. Meanwhile, Immigration Canada maintains that the legislation complies with the ruling because oral hearings are not universally mandated. Community groups and political opponents have seized on the exchange to question the minister’s competence, while the Prime Minister’s Office affirmed that Diab retains confidence as the government works to adjust immigration levels.
Source: cbc.ca
