Resettlement, durable solutions and signatory countries

Resolution number
9
Whereas
  1. The CCR adopted Resolution 5, Dec. 1999 drawing CIC’s attention to the inconsistency of interpretation of ‘durable solution’ and calling for an interpretation that specified that temporary protection and eligibility for future refugee determination do not constitute a ‘durable solution’.
  2. CIC’s manual chapter OP5 fails to provide clarity to the interpretation of ‘durable solution’, and continues to blend the concepts of ‘signatory countries’ and ‘fair and effective protection regimes’.
  3. The language used in OP5 does not conform to the regulatory provisions in IRPA.
  4. CIC created the policy in OP5 of ‘signatory countries’ as a limitation to access the Canadian resettlement stream even though IRPA provides no such limitation.
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Urge CIC to abandon the use of concepts of ‘signatory countries’ and ‘fair and effective protection regimes’ and focus its attention on the availability of a durable solution for the individual applicant.
  2. Urge that OP5 be amended to conform to IRPA and to set out that there is no reasonable prospect of a durable solution in all those situations where it has been improperly applied, and in particular, those situations where: a)    a refugee claim has been made in the country where the person is located and rejected.

     

     b)    the determination of a refugee claim in the country where the person is located is subject to undue delays.

     

     c)    a refugee claim is pending in the country where the person is located and likely to be rejected for the reason that the concept of protection is applied more narrowly by that country than by Canada.

     

     d)    the person has been denied access to the local refugee determination regime because of the person’s own prior irrevocable waiver of the right to access the refugee determination system.
  3. Request that CIC:
    a) make it clear to sponsors and the applicant when CIC believes that applicants are in a country where local integration may represent a durable solution.
    b) indicate concretely what the proposed durable solution is.

     

     
    c) allow the sponsors and the applicant to rebut that presumption.
  4. Urge its members to litigate failed resettlement cases where ‘signatory country’ was the issue.
Subject
Resettlement policy
Working Group
Overseas Protection and Resettlement