OTTAWA - Advocacy groups for migrant rights are calling on the federal government to withdraw its border security bill, C-12, which they claim threatens the rights of migrants. Representatives from the Migrant Rights Network and the Canadian Council for Refugees held a news conference on Parliament Hill to voice their concerns after being excluded from the witness lists for Commons committees studying the bill.

Karen Cocq, a spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, criticized the bill, stating, "Bill C-12 proposes changes to nine pieces of legislation, is 70 pages long and yet has only been given three weeks of study." She emphasized that during this limited time, no migrants who could be affected by the bill have had the opportunity to present their cases to the committee.

The proposed legislation includes significant immigration and asylum measures, such as a provision that would prevent individuals from filing refugee applications with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada if they have been in the country for more than a year. This restriction has raised alarms among advocates, who argue it could hinder individuals from claiming asylum based on evolving conditions in their home countries.

Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director at the Canadian Council for Refugees, highlighted the potential impact of the one-year rule, stating, "We've just seen in a country like the U.S. overnight, someone who is trans can be declared to not exist anymore." She added that individuals fleeing domestic violence may find it particularly challenging to gather evidence and legal support within the proposed timeframe.

The government has defended the legislation, asserting that individuals who are ineligible for regular refugee hearings can still undergo pre-removal risk assessments. Immigration Department officials have indicated that these assessments cover similar questions and evidence as those presented in hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Bill C-12 also grants the government the authority to halt new immigration applications or cancel existing ones if deemed necessary for the "public interest." Immigration Minister Lena Diab has stated that the term "public interest" is intentionally vague to allow flexibility in addressing various future scenarios, including public health crises or security threats.

The bill is currently under review by House of Commons immigration and national security committees, with clause-by-clause consideration scheduled for an upcoming meeting. Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner has announced plans to propose several amendments, including one that would block refugee applications from individuals arriving from European or G7 nations. Cocq criticized these proposed amendments, likening them to a previous law from the Stephen Harper government that was deemed unconstitutional in 2015. She stated, "This whole notion that entire groups of people can have a blanket ban from the system challenges the basic notions of fairness."

As the debate continues, advocacy groups remain firm in their stance against the bill, urging the government to reconsider its approach to border security and migrant rights.